Holland v. State
Holland v. State
Opinion
Cite as
2016 Ark. App. 492ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No.CR-16-175
Opinion Delivered: October 26, 2016 WESLEY GENE HOLLAND APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 13CR-2014-48-5]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, APPELLEE JR., JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Wesley Gene Holland appeals his convictions of second-degree sexual assault and
residential burglary. On appeal, Holland argues that the circuit court erred in denying his
directed-verdict motions. We cannot address the merits of Holland’s appeal because
Holland’s addendum fails to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (2015).
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an appellant’s brief to include an
addendum consisting of all documents essential to this court’s resolution of the issues on
appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. Holland’s addendum does not comply
with this rule. At trial, the State introduced and played audio recordings of two different
interviews between Holland and the police. Holland, however, failed to include copies of
the audio recordings in his addendum as required by our rules. Because Holland’s addendum
is inadequate, we order him to file a supplemental addendum within seven days of this Cite as
2016 Ark. App. 492opinion. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We encourage counsel to review our rules, as well
as the record and addendum, to ensure that no other deficiencies are present.
Supplemental addendum ordered.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree.
N. Mark Klappenbach, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published