ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION IV
JAMES EARL BRADFORD
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
CACR06-776
March 21, 2007
AP P E AL F RO M HEMPS T E AD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-05-204-1]
HON. KEITH NEWTON WOOD,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and
simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. He was sentenced to twenty years’
imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his residence because the
search warrant was illegally obtained.
We do not address the merits because appellant has failed to adequately abstract the
record in his brief as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) in that appellant has not provided
us with a condensation of the witnesses’ testimony, but has instead reproduced it verbatim
-2-
CACR06-776
in question-and-answer format. See Muldrow v. Douglass, 316 Ark. 86, 870 S.W.2d 736
(1994).
We direct appellant to submit a substituted brief that contains a revised abstract that
provides a condensation of the witnesses’ testimony in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(a)(5). A model brief with examples of proper condensation of testimony can be found on
the Arkansas Judiciary website at http://courts.state.ar.us/clerk/model_20030724.pdf.
Appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, brief,
and addendum to conform with Rule 4-2(a)(5). See Jones v. Phillips County Election
Commission, 357 Ark. 384, 167 S.W.3d 662 (2004). 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