ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 17, 2002

TERRENCE MITCHELL

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR00-1203

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CR 98-452-2-3, HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. He was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, alleging three claims of ineffective assistance: (1) trial counsel did not move to dismiss the charges on the basis of a speedy trial violation; (2) trial counsel did not adequately investigate appellant's case; and (3) trial counsel did not establish a factual basis before accepting the guilty plea.

Appellant's trial counsel filed a motion requesting a hearing on the petition; however, the circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. Appellant now appeals, claiming that the circuit court erred by not holding a hearing before ruling on his petition. Appellant concedes on appeal that the speedy trial claim was properly decided; therefore, he is not appealing the trial court's finding that there was no violation. We decline to consider appellant's other arguments, because hehas 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.1 The appellant bears the responsibility of producing a sufficient abstract, and the failure to do so prevents the court from reaching the merits of appellant's argument. Hill v. State, 337 Ark. 219, 223-24, 988 S.W.2d 487, 490 (1999). With the exception of material 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).

Without a proper abstract of the petition and plea hearing, we are unable to determine whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted. Accordingly, appellant's failure to properly abstract critical documents precludes this court from considering issues concerning it. Watson v. State, 329 Ark. 511, 512, 951 S.W.2d 304, 305 (1997).

Affirmed.

Imber, J., not participating.

1 Cases in which the record is lodged in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals on or after September 1, 2001, will no longer be affirmed because of the insufficiency of the abstract without the appellant first having the opportunity to cure the deficiencies. See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System -- Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, Ark. Appx. __, __ S.W.3d __ (2001) (per curiam). The record in the instant case was filed before September 1, 2001.