This case involves an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 (2000). Appellee, State of Arkansas, has filed a motion for compliance, calling certain deficiencies in appellant’s brief to this Court’s attention and requesting that the Court grant its motion and direct appellant to file a substituted abstract and brief that conforms to the rules of this Court pertaining to formatting and abstracting, pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1 (a) and 4-2(b)(3) (2002). We grant appellee’s motion.
Appellant has filed a brief in this appeal that clearly does not conform with the rules of this Court. The argument portion of appellant’s brief, consisting of nineteen pages, is entirely single-spaced. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-1 (a) requires that briefs be double-spaced. The record does not reflect that appellant has been granted permission to file an overlength brief or has been exempted from the requirement that his brief be double-spaced.
In regard to abstract deficiencies noted by the appellee, it appears that appellant’s brief actually contains no abstract. Appellant raises thirty-two points on appeal, most of which allege that his trial attorney was ineffective; however, appellant has failed to abstract the records of both his trial and the Rule 37 hearings, as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2002). Without an abstract of the proceedings, this Court cannot address any of his arguments. See Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 970 S.W.2d 289 (1998)(holding that the Court cannot review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without an abstract of the trial testimony).
Because appellant has failed to comply with Rules 4-1 and 4-2, we are ordering him to file a substituted abstract and brief that conforms to the rules of this Court pertaining to formatting and abstracting. Appellant must file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within thirty days from the entry of this order.
Motion for compliance granted.