Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 73
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-610
WENDI COX Opinion Delivered January 29, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2012-79]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE LARRY W.
APPELLEE CHANDLER, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Wendi Cox was tried by a jury on two counts of theft of property valued at more than
$1,000 but less than $5,000; four counts of theft of property valued at more than $5,000 but
less than $25,000; and two counts of theft of property valued at $25,000 or more. The jury
found her guilty on all counts and sentenced her to consecutive sentences totaling sixty years’
imprisonment. She appeals, contending that substantial evidence did not exist to convict her
of the thefts. She argues that the only evidence linking her to the crimes was testimony that
was inconsistent or was given by individuals with motives to lie. We order rebriefing for lack
of compliance with the requirements of Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals.
The addendum of the appellant’s brief “shall contain true and legible copies of the
non-transcript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to
confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Ark. Sup.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 73
Ct. R. 4-2(8). Where there was a jury trial, those documents must include the jury’s verdict
forms. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(8)(a)(i). Because the jury forms do not appear in the addendum
of Cox’s brief, we order rebriefing on this basis.
Further, although Cox’s argument challenges evidence of accomplice corroboration
and the State alludes to Cox’s being convicted as an accomplice, nothing in the abstract or
addendum enables us to determine that this issue was presented at trial. See, e.g., Massey v.
State, 2010 Ark. App. 683 (ordering rebriefing where our understanding of the case would
have been enhanced by inclusion in the addendum of an amended information to which the
State alluded); cf. Davis v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 573, at 5 n.1 (declining to order rebriefing
despite a deficiency in the addendum because the specific sufficiency argument on appeal was
not made in appellant’s motion for a directed verdict).
We advise Cox’s counsel to examine our rules to ensure that no other briefing
deficiencies exist. We order counsel to file within fifteen days a substituted brief that includes
the jury form, cures any other deficiencies in the abstract and addendum, and revises his
argument with reference to proper pages of the addendum and abstracted testimony. Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). After service of the substituted brief, the State shall have the
opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by the clerk, or to rely on
the brief that it previously filed in this appeal.
Rebriefing ordered.
WHITEAKER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
John F. Stroud, III, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: LeaAnn J. Adams, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2