FROM THE CLARK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 10CR-14-63],
HONORABLE GREGORY L. VARDAMAN, JUDGE
A. Grady, for appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Asst Atty Gen., for
M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant 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.
Dunns Counsel, Mr. Beckham, notified The Court that he would
file a motion for a mental evaluation with regard to Mr.
Dunns 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. Dunns
mental evaluation on January 6, 2015. (R. 279). The Court
entered the order on Mr. Dunns Petition for Criminal
(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 counsels 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 rebriefing.
we find appellants 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, appellants addendum lacks the
multiple motions filed by appellant; the supporting documents
filed with those motions, including appellants
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 appellants attorney of
record, but listing him as standby counsel; and the order
extending the time to ...