Carter v. State

2015 Ark. 4 (2015) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 15, 2015 · No. CR-14-5

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered rebriefing in Stanley Carter's appeal from convictions for three counts of rape and corresponding life and 50-year sentences. The court found deficiencies in the appellant's abstract, addendum, and brief, including the omission of a continuance order relevant to the speedy-trial claim and inadequate context for review under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i).

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
January 15, 2015
Docket number
CR-14-5
Procedural posture
Appeal from convictions for three counts of rape and sentences of life imprisonment and two fifty-year terms. The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered appellant to rebrief because the appellate brief, abstract, and addendum were deficient.
Standard of review
The court did not reach the merits of the speedy-trial or prejudice claims because the appellate filings were deficient. It stated that the omitted continuance order was essential to appellate review and that the record was insufficient to conduct the required review of prejudicial error under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i).
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Stanley Carter v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
other

Topics

speedy trialappellate procedurecriminal procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Carter's appellate brief, abstract, and addendum complied with the Arkansas Supreme Court's briefing and record-designation rules.
  2. Whether the omitted contemporaneous continuance order prevented appellate review of Carter's speedy-trial claim.
  3. Whether the deficient abstract and addendum prevented the court from conducting the required review of prejudicial error in a life-imprisonment case.

Holdings

  1. When an appellant's abstract, addendum, and brief omit record materials essential to jurisdiction, understanding the case, or deciding the issues, the Arkansas Supreme Court may order the appellant to submit substituted filings complying with the appellate rules.

Key quotations

This order is essential to our review of Carter’s speedy-trial claim. (at 2)
Given the court’s inability to assess Carter’s speedy-trial argument or conduct a proper review pursuant to Rule 4-3(i) of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court, we order rebriefing. (at 2)
Failure to timely correct the deficiencies may result in the judgment of the circuit court being affirmed for noncompliance with our rules. (at 3)

Factual background

A jury in the Crittenden County Circuit Court convicted Stanley Carter of three counts of rape. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment and two fifty-year terms. Carter's appeal challenged the denial of his speedy-trial motion and the circuit court's finding that a continuance did not prejudice him, but the appellate addendum omitted the contemporaneous order granting the continuance and did not provide sufficient context for several adverse rulings.

Procedural history

A Crittenden County Circuit Court jury found Stanley Carter guilty of three counts of rape and imposed a life sentence and two fifty-year sentences. Carter appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for a speedy-trial violation and in finding that a continuance did not prejudice him. The Supreme Court of Arkansas determined that the record materials necessary to review those claims, including the contemporaneous continuance order and adequate contextual treatment of adverse rulings, were missing from the addendum and abstract, and it ordered substituted filings.

Remand instructions

Carter was directed to file, within fifteen days of the per curiam opinion, a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief complying with the Arkansas Supreme Court's rules. The State could file a responsive brief within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Clerk or rely on its previously filed brief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…