ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
September 25, 2003

TROY ELLIOTT

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 03-552

PRO SE MOTION FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, NO. CR 2001-79, HON. GARY R. COTTRELL, JUDGE]

PETITION AND MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

On September 14, 2001, judgment was entered reflecting that Troy Elliott had been found guilty by a jury of three counts of theft of services and sentenced to a term of 168 months' imprisonment. A fine of $7,500 was also imposed, and Elliott was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $45,000. The judgment was amended on September 21, 2001.

Elliott was represented at trial by a retained attorney who was relieved as counsel by the trial court on September 13, 2001. On October 12, 2001, a pro se notice of appeal from the original judgment was filed, signed "Troy Elliott by Roberta Elliott." The appeal was not perfected, and on February 7, 2003, Elliott filed a motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the amended judgment pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal. The motion was denied. Elliott v. State, CR 03-142 (Ark. May 15, 2003).

On March 21, 2003, the trial court entered a second amended judgment, deleting the periods of suspended imposition of sentence that had accompanied each of three sentences imposed on petitioner in the first amended judgment. Petitioner filed a pro se notice of appeal from the second amended judgment and lodged a partial record in this court. He asks that a writ of certiorari be issued to bring up the remainder of the record and that counsel be appointed to represent him. He has submitted an affidavit of indigency, claiming that his property is "tied up in divorce" and has liens against it. He asks that this court order the circuit court to provide the complete trial record at public expense since he cannot afford the costs of the appeal.

The motion and petition are denied. Petitioner did not proceed as an indigent at trial, and he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to appeal from the second amended judgment as an indigent. Moreover, petitioner offers nothing to show what issues are presented by the second amended judgment that require the complete record of the trial to resolve. It may be that petitioner, who failed to perfect an appeal of the original judgment or the first amended judgment and who has already been denied leave to proceed with a belated appeal, expects to now mount an appeal of the original or first amended judgment simply because the trial court entered a second amended judgment eighteen months later. The appeal now lodged here, however, is from the second amended judgment entered March 21, 2003, and issues to be raised on appeal are limited to that judgment. Under these circumstances, we hold that if petitioner desires review of the second amended judgment, it is his burden to tender within forty-five days a motion to supplement the partial record in this matter and that portion of the record necessary for the review of the issues that he desires to argue for reversal of the second amended judgment.

Petition and motion denied.

Thornton, J., not participating.