ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

STEVEN L. WOMACK

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 02-1188

JUNE 18, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH

DIVISION, [NO. CR 2001-3233]

HONORABLE WILLARD

PROCTOR, JR., JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Appellant Steven Lamont Womack has filed a pro se appeal from a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of felony non-support with regard to his three dependents. Womack was sentenced to three years in prison. Womack presents six points on appeal, but as the State has pointed out in its brief, Womack has failed to supply an adequate abstract, argument, or addendum for us to conduct a meaningful review of his issues on appeal. We order rebriefing.

Arkansas Rule of the Supreme Court 4-2(b)(3)(2002) provides that:

Whether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the appellant's abstract or Addendum, the court may address the question at any time. If the court finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the court will notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to

conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7). Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant, as by interlineation, will not be accepted by the Clerk. Upon the filing of such a substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the appellant's counsel, as the court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum, and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule.

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2002) (amended May 31, 2001, effective for cases in which the record is lodged in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals on or after September 1, 2001).

The new rule addressed the need for appeals to be decided on the merits, essentially eliminating the "affirmance rule" except in the rare circumstances where an appellant refuses or fails to comply after being given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies. In re: Modification of the Abstracting System--Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, 345 Ark. Appx. --- (May 31, 2001) (per curiam).

The record in the present appeal is 494 pages long, 211 pages of which is the transcript of the jury trial. Womack's abstract consists only of two statements by his two ex-wives in their testimonies that they had not received any child support. Womack's statement of the case is four pages long and recites multiple case files in various municipal and circuit courts of Pulaski County. The argument is four pages long and has no citation to the record or abstract.1 Womack does not include in the addendum the judgment and commitmentorder from which he appeals, nor does he include the notice of appeal. In the addendum, Womack includes some correspondence that was never part of the trial record. In summary, this brief is flagrantly deficient, and we cannot reach the merits of his arguments at this juncture. We afford Womack an opportunity to file a compliant brief. Womack has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief to conform to Rule 4-2. See Campbell v. State, 349 Ark. 111, 76 S.W.3d 271 (2002); Nichols v. Arnold, 347 Ark. 758, 66 S.W.3d 652 (2002).

Rebriefing ordered.

Pittman and Hart, JJ., agree.

1 The argument recites Womack's opinion that an extensive conspiracy exists among all of the circuit court judges and the prosecutor to jail him and cause him to become substantially in arrears in child support. Womack argues that because he filed bankruptcy, his child support obligations were solely within the bankruptcy court jurisdiction, staying any criminal proceeding thereon.