From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. State

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I
Mar 29, 2017
2017 Ark. App. 191 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

Summary

In Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 191, 2017 WL 1175643, this court ordered rebriefing due to abstract deficiencies; those issues have now been corrected.

Summary of this case from Lewis v. State

Opinion

No. CR-16-533

03-29-2017

KEENAN LEWIS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

James Law Firm, by: William O. "Bill" James and Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.


APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CR-14-2002] HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE REBRIEFING ORDERED DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Keenan Lewis was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offense of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to thirty-one years in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with an additional fifteen years for firearm enhancement. In this appeal, he raises three major points, with several subpoints: 1) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to question Bree Hood about prior specific instances of conduct on redirect examination; 2) the trial court erred by refusing to permit Keenan to testify regarding his knowledge of Jason Harris's gang affiliation; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support Keenan's conviction for murder in the first degree because he proved the justification of self-defense. We are not able to address the merits of Keenan's arguments because of deficiencies in his brief.

Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that all material parts of the transcript, i.e., information that is essential for our court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, shall be abstracted and that references in the argument portion of the parties' briefs to material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed by a reference to the page number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found. It goes without saying that the abstract references to the record must be accurate. Here, the trial objection giving rise to the second point of appeal was not abstracted, and several of the referenced abstract pages do not track with the corresponding record pages. Because Keenan has failed to provide us with a proper abstract, we order rebriefing.

Keenan has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum. We encourage appellate counsel to review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present.

Rebriefing ordered.

HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

James Law Firm, by: William O. "Bill" James and Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.


Summaries of

Lewis v. State

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I
Mar 29, 2017
2017 Ark. App. 191 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

In Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 191, 2017 WL 1175643, this court ordered rebriefing due to abstract deficiencies; those issues have now been corrected.

Summary of this case from Lewis v. State
Case details for

Lewis v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEENAN LEWIS APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Court:ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I

Date published: Mar 29, 2017

Citations

2017 Ark. App. 191 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. State

We affirm. In Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 191, 2017 WL 1175643, this court ordered rebriefing due to…