ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

May 10, 2001

MARCUS GORDON

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 99-1199

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR-99-1199, HONORABLE CHRIS PIAZZA, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1995, appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, first-degree battery, two counts of second-degree battery, and three counts of aggravated assault. The Pulaski County Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole for capital murder with concurrent sentences of six years' imprisonment for each of the other crimes.

In 1999, appellant filed a "petition for postconviction relief under fraud, to vacate the conviction/judgment, habeas corpus, writ of error coram nobis, 16-90-111, declaratory judgment, and quo warranto." The circuit court construed the petition as requesting relief pursuant to Rule 37, and denied it as untimely. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in doing so. We decline to consider appellant's argument because his abstract is flagrantly deficient.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an appellant to include an abstract of the record consisting of the material parts of the record that are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented for decision. The abstracting requirement applies to those appellants whoproceed pro se. Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 510, 872 S.W.2d 400, 400 (1994). It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 361, 28 S.W.3d 286, 288 (2000). We have noted that with only one record on appeal and seven justices, it is essential that the material parts of the record be abstracted. Id. We will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Owens v. State, 325 Ark. 93, 94, 924 S.W.2d 459, 459 (1996).

Here, appellant has failed to abstract the judgment of conviction, his plea agreement, or the contents of his petition. Thus, we cannot determine the timeliness of appellant's petition or the nature of the claims raised. Failure to abstract a critical document precludes this Court from considering issues concerning it. Watson v. State, 329 Ark. 511, 512, 951 S.W.2d 304, 305 (1997). Appellant's brief is flagrantly deficient, and under such circumstances, we affirm. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b).

Affirmed.