ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JULY 9, 2001

HAROLD JOHNSON

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 99-1304

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SEVIER COUNTY,

NO. CR 93-23

HONORABLE TED C. CAPEHEART,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Harold Johnson, was on probation for unlawful burning when he was charged with theft by receiving. Appellant's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to six years' in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The court of appeals affirmed. Johnson v. State, CACR 98-1111 (Ark. App. May 26, 1999). Subsequently, appellant filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. A hearing was held after which the trial court denied appellant's petition. This appeal followed.

For his first point on appeal, appellant argues that counsel performed ineffectively at appellant's revocation hearing. Appellant refers to several incidents that he characterizes as deficient performance by counsel, and appellant cites to the transcript of the revocation hearing in support of his challenges. Even though appellant cites to transcript pages for us to reference, he has neglected to abstract the revocation hearing. From the abstract presented, we have no way of resolving theissues raised in appellant's brief challenging counsel's alleged ineffective performance. 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 the Court 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); Edwards v. Neuse, 312 Ark. 302, 849 S.W.2d 479 (1993). Appellant's argument requires a review of the revocation proceedings below, thus, we are precluded from reviewing these issues because of appellant's inadequate abstract.

Next, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an appeal bond following his Rule 37 hearing. This issue is now moot based on our decision to affirm. See Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 550, 776 S.W.2d 327 (1989).

Affirmed.