ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

May 24, 2001

STEVEN SWANIGAN

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 99-1106

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, NO. CR-96-285, HONORABLE JOHN FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and second-degree battery. He received a sentence of sixty years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, appellant did not challenge his second-degree battery conviction, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Swanigan v. State, CA CR 98-360 (Ark. App. April 28, 1999). Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition, and in this appeal, appellant submits that it erred in doing so. We decline to consider appellant's argument because he has failed to produce a record on appeal sufficient to demonstrate error.

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 thequestions presented for decision. The abstracting requirement applies to those appellants who proceed 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).

Appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because she did not make a motion to suppress evidence, did not call certain witnesses, did not move for a directed verdict, and did not timely challenge the chain-of-custody of the contraband found in his possession. We cannot reach the merits of these claims because appellant has failed to include an abstract of his trial in his brief. See Hubbard v. State, 334 Ark. 321, 324, 973 S.W.2d 804, 805 (1998). A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must view it through the perspective of the totality of the evidence put before the jury. Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 705-06, 970 S.W.2d 289, 292 (1998), reh'g denied, 333 Ark. 701, 975 S.W.2d 836. Absent this material information, we cannot evaluate appellant's claims according to the "cause and prejudice" test in Strickland. Hubbard, supra; see also Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6). Accordingly, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying appellant's petition.