ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

JAN CLIFTON DOYLE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-367

NOVEMBER 20, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-99-409]

HONORABLE JOHN NELSON

FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Appellant Jan Clifton Doyle was convicted by a jury of first-degree battery. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and fined $15,000.00. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(j) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Mr. Doyle's counsel filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. In an unpublished opinion delivered on November 7, 2001, we denied his motion to withdraw and ordered supplementation of the record, reabstracting, and rebriefing.

Mr. Doyle's counsel has now supplemented the record with the portions that were originally excluded, consisting of jury voir dire, opening statements, and closing arguments. In his supplemental brief, he has complied with our directive to cite relevant authority as to why each point raised cannot support a meritorious appeal. However, Mr. Doyle's counsel has again submitted an abstract that is flagrantly deficient. With the exception of abstracting

one adverse ruling that occurred during jury voir dire, the supplemental abstract is virtually identical to the one previously submitted.

In our original opinion we held that the abstract was deficient because, "while each adverse ruling was abstracted, testimony that was necessary to give context to the adverse rulings was omitted." The same is true for the supplemental abstract. Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court provides, in pertinent part:

The appellant's abstract or abridgment of the transcript should consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only such material parts of the testimony of the witnesses and colloquies between the court and counsel and other parties as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the Court for decision.

Mr. Doyle's counsel has failed to abstract material parts of the testimony necessary for an understanding of the questions presented on appeal. Therefore, we are again compelled to order Mr. Doyle's counsel to reabstract in this no-merit appeal.

Reabstracting ordered.

Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree.