ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

October 9, 2003

JOHN AARON LACY

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-985

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 99-424, HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Per Curiam

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed on appeal. See Lacy v. State, 345 Ark. 63, 44 S.W.3d 296 (2001). Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. A previous order entered on January 11, 2002, denied the instant petition on all grounds except the one under consideration at the evidentiary hearing, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use a trial strategy based on self-defense. Following the hearing, the trial court denied relief on appellant's claim. From that order comes this appeal.

Appellant claims that counsel failed to present evidence corroborating his claim that he acted in self-defense. Included in this argument are claims that counsel failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation, counsel failed to introduce witnesses who could have testified to the victim's character and violent history, and that counsel failed to meet with appellant asufficient number of times prior to trial. We cannot reach the merits of appellant's claims because he has failed to include a proper abstract as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2002). See Hubbard v. State, 334 Ark. 321, 324, 973 S.W.2d 804, 805 (1998). "In making a determination on a claim of ineffectiveness, the totality of the evidence before the factfinder must be considered." Noel v. State, 342 Ark. 35, 38, 26 S.W.3d 123, 125 (2000). Appellant has failed to abstract his original trial. Absent this material information, we cannot evaluate appellant's claims according to the "cause and prejudice" test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Hubbard, supra. Therefore, appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7). See Campbell v. State, 349 Ark. 111, 112, 76 S.W.3d 271, 272 (2002). Mere modifications of the original brief will not be accepted. Id. According to Rule 4-2(b)(3), if 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. Id.

Rebriefing ordered.