FROM THE CLARK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 10CR-14-63]
HONORABLE GREGORY L. VARDAMAN, JUDGE
A. Grady, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, JUDGE
John Dunn was convicted by a Clark County jury of
simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, manufacture of
two or more grams of methamphetamine, use or possession of
paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine, and possession
of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). He was sentenced
to an aggregate term of forty years' imprisonment.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions. Rather, he argues that the trial
court erred in allowing him to represent himself without
having made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to
counsel and that he was not competent to conduct trial
proceedings pro se. We remand the case to settle and
supplement the record. We also order rebriefing for appellant
to correct his abstract, brief, and addendum.
previously held that if anything material to either party is
omitted from the record by error or accident, we may direct
that the omission be corrected and that a supplemental record
be certified and transmitted. Here, during the April 4, 2016
hearing, there was testimony concerning several letters
written by appellant to the court while he was incarcerated.
According to the testimony, some of these letters showed that
appellant was delusional and psychotic at the time they were
written. The court stated that the letters were received at
the court office and then filed and made a part of the
record. However, those letters were not a part of the record
on appeal. Therefore, we remand to the trial court to settle
and supplement the record with the omitted letters within
omnibus hearing was held on October 14, 2014. The entirety of
that hearing, as abstracted, is as follows: "On October
14, 2014, The Court held an omnibus hearing. (R. 276). Mr.
Dunn's Counsel, Mr. Beckham, notified The Court that he
would file a motion for a mental evaluation with regard to
Mr. Dunn's culpability. (R. 24, 277)."
mental competency review took place on January 6, 2015. The
abstract of that hearing is as follows:
The Court held a review to determine the status of Mr.
Dunn's mental evaluation on January 6, 2015. (R. 279).
The Court entered the order on Mr. Dunn's Petition for
Criminal Responsibility Examination (R. 25-29). Mr. Beckham
filed a petition for a mental evaluation in October. (R. 24).
Mr. Dunn continued to wait for a mental evaluation
appointment with Dr. Deyoub. Additionally, Dr. Sean Purifoy
(phonetic) received the Release of Medical Records, but did
not respond. (R. 280). Mr. Dunn attempted to discuss his case
during the proceedings against counsel's advice. (R.281).
The Court also advised Mr. Dunn not to speak. (R. 280-281).
subsequent hearings in which discussions between the court,
counsel, and/or appellant took place are described in
third-person format as in the above examples. Our abstracting
rule provides that the first-person rather than the
third-person shall be used. Because appellant has submitted a
brief that is not in compliance with our rules, we order
we find appellant's addendum deficient. Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires the addendum to include true
and legible copies of the 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. Here, appellant's addendum lacks the
multiple motions filed by appellant; the supporting documents
filed with those motions, including appellant's
certifications, psychological employment screening, and
mental diagnostic evaluation; the responses to those motions
as well as the orders; the order relieving counsel; the
criminal information and supporting affidavit; the
Faretta Motion filed by attorney Winston C. Mathis
and the order relieving him as appellant's attorney of
record, but listing him as standby counsel; and the order
extending the time to prepare the record on appeal. All this
information is essential for us to decide the issues on
appeal and to confirm our jurisdiction. Also, once the record
is settled and supplemented, the letters will need to be
placed in the addendum.
remand to the trial court to settle and supplement the record
within thirty days. We order appellant to file a substituted
abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days from the
date the supplemental record is filed. We note that the
materials listed are not intended as an exhaustive list of
deficiencies, and we encourage counsel to carefully review
the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist before
filing the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum. We are
not authorizing appellant to modify his arguments.
to settle and supplement the ...