ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 28, 2001

RICKY S. MAIER

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 99-1305

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY,

NO. CR 97-2424

HONORABLE JOHN LANGSTON,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Ricky Maier was convicted by a jury of rape and incest and sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Maier v. State, CACR 98-1079 (Ark. App. April 7, 1999). Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 seeking to vacate the judgment. The petition was denied, and this appeal followed.

We do not reach the merits of appellant's arguments because his abstract fails to include his Rule 37 petition. Without the petition, we are unable to determine what appellant argued below before the trial court. In addition, the discernable issues raised in appellant's brief refer to evidence or additional facts that are not abstracted by appellant. Specifically, appellant refers to events that occurred at his original trial. Without abstracting his petition, the trial record and the evidence he relies on to support his arguments on appeal, appellant has failed to comply with our abstractingrequirements and has failed to demonstrate prejudice. 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. Midgett v. State, 316 Ark. 553, 873 S.W.2d 165 (1994). The reason underlying our abstracting rule is basic - there is only one transcript, there are seven judges on this court, and it is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine the one transcript. Bunn v. State, 320 Ark. 516, 898 S.W.2d 450 (1995). The rules are not relaxed for pro se appellants. Jewell v. Arkansas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996).1

Affirmed.

1 Appellant argues that he was denied access to the trial records. We disagree with appellant's assessment of prior events leading up to this opinion. See Maier v. State, CR 99-1305 (Ark. May 25, 2000); Maier v. State, CACR 98-1079 (Ark. App. April 7, 1999).