ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV

RICHARD EARL VON HOLT, JR.

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR03-15

OCTOBER 8, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR2002-524]

HONORABLE JAMES ROBERT MARSCHEWSKI, CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Karen R. Baker, Judge

Appellant, Richard Earl Von Holt, Jr., was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana by a jury in Sebastian County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to a total of forty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He has three arguments on appeal. First, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Second, he argues that the trial judge erred in issuing a nighttime, no-knock search warrant. Third, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the Oklahoma Police Officers. Because there are certain deficiencies in appellant's abstract, we order rebriefing.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine and allowing the testimony of two Oklahoma police officers. However, appellant failed to abstract either the hearing on the motion in limine or the judge's ruling on the motion. Consequently, we are unable to reach the merits of this argument on appeal.

While failure to abstract materials essential to the understanding of an argument on appeal has in the past been considered a bar to consideration of the merits of the argument, this court must now allow rebriefing to cure deficiencies in the abstract or addendum. See Spears v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___, 109 S.W.3d 139 (2003) (citing Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Collier, 351 Ark. 380, 92 S.W.3d 683 (2002); Campbell v. State, 349 Ark. 111, 76 S.W.3d 271 (2002); Nichols v. Arnold, 347 Ark. 758, 66 S.W.3d 652 (2002); Simmons v. State, 80 Ark. App. 426, 97 S.W.3d 421 (2003), overruled on other grounds by Larry v. Grady Sch. Dist., ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 14, 2003); McNeil v. Lillard, 79 Ark. App. 69, 86 S.W.3d 389 (2002)). Rule 4-2(b)(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides, in part, that:

[i]f 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 (8).

Here, we order appellant to prepare an abstract including all "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." Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2003). A revised brief for appellant is due in fifteen days, and in the revised brief, counsel should cure all the deficiencies listed above. The State may then respond to the revised brief within fifteen days. Thereafter, counsel for appellant will have ten days in which to file a reply brief. Because we order rebriefing in this case, we do not address the merits of appellant's points on appeal at this time. 

Rebriefing ordered.

Vaught and Crabtree, JJ., agree.