ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 28, 2001

BARRY L. WALLACE

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 99-1367

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, NO. CR-97-334, HONORABLE JOHN FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted of burglary and theft of property for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty-five years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion. Wallace v. State, CA CR 97-1556 (Ark. App. Aug. 26, 1998). We denied appellant's petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision in an unpublished opinion. Wallace v. State, CR 98-1086 (Ark. Sept. 24, 1998)(per curiam).

Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. After conducting a hearing on the petition, the circuit court denied it. We subsequently issued a writ of certiorari to the circuit court for the entry of written findings as required by Ark. R. Cr. P. 37.3(c). The circuit court entered such findings, and appellant now submits that it erred in denying his petition. 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 therecord 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. Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 361, 28 S.W.3d 286, 288 (2000). With the exception of materials included in the addendum, the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Huddleston v. State, 339 Ark. 266, 273, 5 S.W.3d 46, 50-51 (1999). 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 by rejecting his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We cannot reach the merits of this claim 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)(per curiam), 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.