ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 7, 2001

COY JACKSON

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellees

CR 99-1117

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, CR 97-68, HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A Garland County jury convicted appellant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years' imprisonment, and fined $10,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. Jackson v. State, CA CR 98-195 (Ark. App. Sept. 30, 1998). Appellant subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 raising 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 the questions presented for decision. 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 the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 37 petition, and he raises six claims of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel during the course of his trial. We cannot reach the merits of appellant's claims because he 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 an abstract of appellant's trial, 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.