ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 14, 2001

FREDRICK SCHMON WALKER

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 99-1133

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY,

NO. CR 95-1909

HONORABLE JOHN PLEGGE,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Frederick S. Walker, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He subsequently filed a petition for post conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was untimely and dismissed appellant's case. This appeal followed. We affirm as appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6)(1999).

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in applying the time limitations set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. Rule 37.2 to dismiss his petition which contained a writ of error coram nobis, a motion for declaratory judgment and a motion to vacate the judgment. Appellant also argues that his plea was not knowing or voluntary. From the abstract presented, we have no way of resolving the issues raised in appellant's brief. An abstract "should consist of an impartial condensation . . . of only such material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to theCourt for decision." Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). At a minimum, abstracts of basic pleadings and court orders are necessary. See King v. State, 325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996).

Here, appellant not only failed to abstract material parts of the record, but he failed to include in his brief an adequate abstract of his petition which is critical for a review of appellant's first argument. Appellant has also failed to abstract his plea hearing and plea statement for a review of appellant's second point on appeal. The abstracting requirement is the same for parties who appeal pro se as it is for those who are represented by attorneys. Markham v. State, 303 Ark. 438, 798 S.W.2d 58 (1990). In the absence of an adequate abstract, this court will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Pogue v. State, 316 Ark. 428, 872 S.W.2d 387 (1974); Bowers v. State, 292 Ark. 249, 729 S.W.2d 170 (1970).

Affirmed.