APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
32CR-10-249] HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE
Elizabeth Roberts Force, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
KARENR. BAKER, Associate Justice
Elizabeth Roberts Force brings this appeal from the denial
and dismissal by the trial court of her pro se petition for
dismissal of fines, or in the alternative, for imposition of
public-service work. Force's sole argument on appeal is
that the basis for her petition was a statute, identified by
her as "code 16-13-703 Imprisonment,
" that permits a court to allow a defendant
additional time for payment of fines, reduction of the amount
of payment, or revocation of the unpaid portion of the fine.
Because Force has failed to produce an adequate record for
the appeal and the issue of the applicability of the statute
to her request for relief was not raised below, the trial
court's order is affirmed.
record in this appeal does not include a copy of the judgment
originally entered in Force's criminal case in which she
was sentenced to pay the fine or fines at
issue. The pertinent record before us consists of
Force's petition to dismiss the fines in which she
contends only that she is financially unable to pay the fines
and the trial court's order that disposed of the
petition. The burden of providing a record sufficient to
demonstrate that reversible error occurred lies with the
appellant. Spearman v. State, 2013 Ark. 196, 427
S.W.3d 593. Without the original judgment and any subsequent
orders of the trial court that reflect Force's conviction
and sentences, we have no choice but to affirm the trial
court's order. See Warren v. Felts, 2017 Ark.
237 (noting that the appellate court must affirm on appeal
when the appellant has failed to demonstrate with an adequate
record that the trial court erred).
Moreover, even if the record contained the pertinent
documents reflecting the history of Force's conviction
and subsequent sentencings, we could not reach the issue
raised in her brief, which concerned the applicability of the
particular statute to her sentence, because the argument was
not raised in the trial court. On appeal, this court reviews
the decision made by the trial court based on the petition
that was before it; accordingly, an appellant is limited to
the scope and nature of his or her arguments below, and he or
she cannot raise new arguments on appeal. See Carter v.
State, 2015 Ark. 166, 460 S.W.3d 781.
Special Justice Lee Watson joins in this opinion.
C.J., not participating.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
dissent. The majority has affirmed this case ostensibly
because "the record in this case does not include a copy
of the judgment originally entered in Force's criminal
case in which she was originally sentenced to pay the fine or
fines at issue." Summary affirmance for this reason was
abolished nearly two decades ago when Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-2 was amended to allow an appellant to fix a
majority believes that it is unable to reach the merits due
to missing documents, the proper disposition of this case is
to decline to consider the case on the merits and order the
appellant to cure the deficiency. See, e.g.,
Bryan v. ...