ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-13-118
VILAYCHANH PHENGTHAVY Opinion Delivered September 4, 2013
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH AND GREENWOOD
DISTRICTS
STATE OF ARKANSAS [NOS. CR-2007-302, CR-2007-303,
APPELLEE CR-2007-304, CR-2007-943(b), G-CR-
2011-37]
HONORABLE JAMES O. COX,
JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTATION OF
ADDENDUM ORDERED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Appellant Vilaychanh Phengthavy’s suspended sentences for various drug-related
convictions were revoked in an order entered on December 19, 2012, and he was sentenced
to 124 years in prison with 94 years suspended. His sentences were revoked because he
committed the offense of delivery of methamphetamine, a violation of the terms and
conditions of his suspended sentences. On appeal, he contends that there is insufficient
evidence to support the revocation and that the State’s failure to notify him that his violation
was based on accomplice liability was fundamentally unfair. Because appellant has submitted
a brief without a proper addendum in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i), we order
appellant to submit a supplemental addendum.
Cite as
The Fort Smith Police Department set up a controlled buy using a confidential
informant on September 24, 2012. The informant was wearing a video and audio recording
device. The informant had been given $100 in various bills whose serial numbers had been
recorded. The informant met a female, Mickayla Akins, in a Walmart parking lot. Ms. Akins
was in a white Chevrolet truck being driven by appellant. The informant got in the truck, and
appellant drove the truck around the parking lot while Ms. Akins sold methamphetamine to
the informant in exchange for the $100. After the informant got out of the truck and gave the
methamphetamine to the police, the police stopped appellant’s truck. Based on this incident,
the State filed a petition to revoke appellant’s suspended sentences.
The video of the transaction was introduced into evidence and played for the court.
On appeal, appellant argues that he did not speak to or look at the confidential informant
during the transaction and merely drove the truck. To support his argument, appellant cites
a blank page in the addendum that contains a copy of the sticker for State’s Exhibit 1 but no
exhibit. State’s Exhibit 1 was the video recording of the transaction.
Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires the addendum to include all items that are essential for
the appellate court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, including
exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. Appellant’s addendum is deficient because it does not
contain the DVD of the transaction, which was relied on by the trial court and is being cited
by appellant as support for his argument on appeal. Accordingly, we order appellant to file a
supplemental addendum to provide the video exhibit to the members of the court within
seven calendar days from the date of this opinion.
2
Cite as
Supplementation of addendum ordered.
PITTMAN and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
The Lancaster Law Firm, PLLC, by: Clinton W. Lancaster, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3
