Joseph Thomas Lacefield v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 243
Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity of this
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
document DIVISION III
Date: 2021-07-06 12:46:29
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: No. CR-19-617
9.7.5
Opinion Delivered: April 15, 2020

JOSEPH THOMAS LACEFIELD APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NOS. 04CR-14-821; 04CR-14-1460;
04CR-15-69]
V.
HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE

APPELLEE
REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Joseph Thomas Lacefield appeals the order of the Benton County Circuit

Court denying his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas

Rules of Criminal Procedure (2019). Appellant raises seven points on appeal; however,

because appellant has submitted a brief without a proper abstract, we order rebriefing.

As an initial matter, we recognize that appellant’s appeal stems from the denial of his

petition for postconviction relief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7 governs briefs in

postconviction and certain civil appeals in which the appellant is incarcerated and

proceeding pro se. However, because appellant is represented by counsel in this

postconviction appeal, his appellate brief must meet the requirements of Rule 4-2.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) (2019) provides, in pertinent part:
The question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations
where a short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing
important meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the
transcript.

Here, in direct violation of Rule 4-2, appellant’s entire abstract is in question-and-answer

format.

Due to appellant’s failure to comply with our abstracting rules, we order appellant to

file a substituted brief curing the deficiency within fifteen days from the date this order is

entered.1 After service of the substituted brief, appellee shall have the opportunity to file a

responsive brief in the time prescribed by the clerk, or appellee may choose to rely on the

brief previously filed in this appeal. While we have noted the deficient abstract, we strongly

encourage appellant’s counsel to review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies

exist, as any subsequent rebriefing order may result in affirmance of the order or judgment

due to noncompliance with Rule 4-2.2

Rebriefing ordered.

GLADWIN and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

University of Arkansas School of Law, Law School Legal Clinic, by: Tiffany Murphy, for

appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

1
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
2
See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3); see also Carter v. Cline, 2011 Ark. 266 (per curiam).

2