FROM THE CRITTENDEN C O U NT Y C IRC U IT C O U R T [NO.
Lewellen, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
HONORABLE JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
LARRYD. VAUGHT, JUDGE.
Lamarvin Farmer appeals from the sentencing order entered by
the Crittenden County Circuit Court convicting him of
attempted capital murder, sixteen counts of second-degree
unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, and fleeing.
With enhancements for employing a firearm in the commission
of each of these offenses, Farmer was sentenced to a total of
ninety-six years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department
of Correction. Farmer raises four points on appeal: (1) the
circuit court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; (2)
the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial;
(3) there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the
accomplice testimony to support his convictions; and (4) the
circuit court erred in allowing him to be convicted of more
than one count of unlawful discharge of a firearm because it
was conduct constituting one continuous event. We cannot
reach the merits of his arguments due to abstract and
third point on appeal includes three subpoints, one of which
is that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
his motion for continuance. Farmer filed a motion for
continuance on March 12, 2018, two days before trial. The
circuit court held a hearing on Farmer's motion that same
day, after which the court orally denied the motion.
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) states that "[t]he
appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of
all the transcripts (stenographically reported material) in
the record. Information in a transcript is material if the
information is essential for the appellate court to confirm
its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the
issues on appeal." Id. Here, the abstract does
not include either Farmer's arguments or the ruling from
the circuit court's hearing on Farmer's motion for
continuance. This information is essential for the appellate
court to decide Farmer's argument on appeal that the
circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion.
not Farmer's only abstracting deficiency. Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) also provides that "the
abstract shall be an impartial condensation, without comment
or emphasis, of the transcript (stenographically reported
material)" and that "[n]o more than one page of a
transcript shall be abstracted without giving a record page
reference." Throughout the abstract, there are
gaps-without explanation-in the hearing arguments and the
trial testimony. For instance, the abstract of the February
26, 2018 pretrial hearing skips from R. 224 to R. 231-232.
The abstract of the March 9, 2018 motion-to-suppress hearing
skips from R. 262 to R. 271. The abstract contains a gap in
trial testimony from R. 677 to R. 685; R. 697 to R. 702; R.
716 to R. 719; R. 732 to R. 737; R. 1055 to R. 1067; and R.
1068 to R. 1075. This is just a sampling; not an exhaustive
in Farmer's abstract, there is a paragraph that is
described as "the Defendant's phone call from the
Detention facility," and the record-page cites within
this paragraph are to R. 1067-1068. However, this phone call
begins at R. 1057 and ends at R. 1069. Moreover, there is no
context to this paragraph in the abstract. It is not clear in
the paragraph whom Farmer called, whom he was talking to, or
about whom he is talking. This evidence is relevant to
Farmer's third point on appeal challenging the
is also an addendum deficiency in this case. Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the addendum to include all
nontranscript items on appeal that are essential for the
appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand
the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. This includes
exhibits such as DVDs. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i). The
State introduced into evidence and published to the jury a
West Memphis police officer's dash-camera video. This
video was relied on by law enforcement when it concluded that
Farmer was the individual who was shooting a weapon at a
police officer from the backseat of a vehicle and is relevant
on the issue of accomplice-corroboration testimony.
appellate court determines that deficiencies or omissions in
the abstract or addendum need to be corrected, but complete
rebriefing is not needed, then the court will order the
appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum within
seven calendar days to provide the additional materials from
the record to the members of the appellate court. Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Accordingly, we order Farmer to submit a
supplemental abstract and addendum correcting the
above-referenced deficiencies within seven days from the date
of this opinion. Id.; see also Powell v.
State, 2013 Ark.App. 149, at 3. We encourage
Farmer's counsel to review Rule 4-2 to ensure that the
supplemental abstract and addendum comply with the rule and
that no additional deficiencies are present.