NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION II

JOHN E. SEARCY

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-1046

May 16, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE SEARCY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

(NO. CR99-60)

HON. KAREN RENEE BAKER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

John E. Searcy, Jr. appeals from the Searcy County Circuit Court's dismissal of his appeal of a municipal court conviction of several traffic charges. Searcy was arrested and issued ticket number G772220 for careless and prohibited driving, no registration, no insurance, and no driver's license. He was subsequently convicted of these charges in Marshall Municipal Court, fined, and ordered not to drive until such time as an appeal to circuit court was heard or until he obtained a valid driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. Searcy timely lodged an appeal to circuit court in which, although not required, he filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing the judgment that was entered for "this case (Traffic Citation G772220)." However, when Searcy appeared for a jury trial de novo on February 17, 2000, the State dismissed the careless and prohibited driving charge,then asserted that Searcy had "failed to perfect" his appeal of the remaining charges. On April 10, 2000, after no written judgment had been entered in his case, Searcy filed a "Motion for Entry of Judgment or in the Alternative to Dismiss the Charges," and on April 20, 2000, the circuit court entered the dismissal order from which Searcy now appeals. On May 1, 2000, Searcy filed a "Motion to Amend Order," which was not acted upon by the trial court. On appeal, Searcy, who has appeared pro se throughout this case, argues that the trial court erred in: 1) finding that he failed to perfect his appeal; 2) failing to rule on his motion to amend and in effect denying his motion; and 3) failing to explain the conclusions of law and fact upon which it based its findings. Because Searcy has failed to bring up a record and abstract sufficient for us to address the merits of his appeal, we affirm.

In order to perfect an appeal from municipal court to circuit court, the appellant need only pay the fees authorized by law and lodge the record of the municipal court proceedings in the circuit court having jurisdiction of the appeal. Ark. Inf. Ct. R. 9; Lowe v. State, 330 Ark. 106, 776 S.W.2d 822 (1989); Pace v. Castleberry, 68 Ark. App. 342, 7 S.W.2d 347 (1999). It is not necessary to file a notice of appeal, and the mere filing of such a notice within thirty days does not serve to perfect the appeal. Id. It is the duty of the clerk of the municipal court "to prepare and certify such record when requested by the appellant" when the appropriate fees have been paid. Ark. Inf. Ct. R. 9(b). This is all Searcy was required to do in order to perfect his appeal from municipal court.

However, the issue we are obligated to first resolve in Searcy's favor is whether he has presented an abstract or indeed a record sufficient for us to address the merits of hisappeal from circuit court to this court. It is well-settled that we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys, including the requirement of bringing up both a record and abstract sufficient for appellate review. Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243, 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000); Watts v. State, 68 Ark. App. 477, 3 S.W.3d 703 (1999). Moreover, although the record is confined to that which is abstracted, Atchison v. State, 68 Ark. App. 231, 5 S.W.3d 491 (1999), we cannot consider evidence included in an appellant's brief that is not also in the record before us. Bob Cole Bonding v. State, 340 Ark. 641, 13 S.W.3d 147 (2000). We have no choice but to conclude that neither the record nor the abstract presented to this court will allow us to reach the merits of Searcy's appeal.

Searcy's "Abstract of Record and Exhibits" contained in his brief consists of a two and one-half page narrative summarizing the contents of the record, without giving any dates, and photocopies of three documents that are not in the record lodged with this court, two municipal court docket sheets from ticket # G772220, trial date August 26, 1999, for the offenses of "no proof of insurance" and "failure to pay registration" with municipal and circuit court file marks of September 15, 1999, and a photocopy of traffic ticket #G772220 reflecting the charges of careless/prohibited driving, no driver's license, no proof of insurance and failure to pay registration that has no court file mark.

The twenty-two page record reflects that Searcy designated in his notice of appeal to this court the following six documents as the "portions" of the circuit court record he wished to be included: Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint, dated May 10, 1999; Notice of Appeal, filed on September 15, 1999; Motion for Entry of Judgment or in the Alternative toDismiss the Charges, filed on April 10, 2000; Final Order, filed on April 20, 2000; Motion to Amend the Order, filed May 1, 2000; Notice of Appeal, filed on June 16, 2000.

In the circuit clerk's certificate, which is page 4 of this record, only the later five documents are listed, followed by the word "only." However, in addition to these five items, a municipal court docket sheet for the "careless and prohibited driving" charge, bearing trial date, ticket number, and municipal and circuit court file marks identical to the two docket sheets contained in Searcy's abstract, and an appeal bond on "traffic citation #G772770" also bearing the municipal and circuit clerks's file marks of the same date are inexplicably included in the record.

In short, we cannot determine from the record before us, much less from Searcy's abstract, which documents are properly in the record and which of the relevant municipal court documents were even contained in the circuit court file at the time of Searcy's scheduled trial. Moreover, there is no transcript of the pretrial hearing, in which Searcy claims that he argued eleven motions, or of the "in camera" hearing in which he alleges that the State dismissed the charge of careless and prohibited driving and asserted that he had "failed to perfect" an appeal of the remaining charges. In sum, some of the pertinent documents in the record have been omitted from Searcy's abstract, other documents necessary to his appeal are inserted in his abstract but are not in the record, and yet another crucial piece of the evidentiary puzzle, a transcript of the proceedings, is not in existence because Searcy never requested it. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for us to review for trial court error.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Vaught, JJ., agree.