ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-14-933
AARON JAMES SZABO Opinion Delivered MAY 27, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-14-462-1]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM
ORDERED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
Aaron James Szabo appeals after he entered a conditional plea on the charge of Driving
While Intoxicated - First Offense and was sentenced by the Washington County Circuit
Court to a fine of $325, court costs of $300, and booking/administrative fees of $20 and given
one day of jail credit.1 On appeal, appellant contends that (1) the police officer illegally seized
appellant by opening the driver’s door and positioning himself between the open door and
the seat occupied by appellant; (2) the police officer had no objective reason to believe that
appellant was in immediate need of medical assistance and imminent danger of death or
1
While the trial court orally pronounced that it sentenced appellant to one day in
county jail with one day jail credit, the written sentencing order does not reflect that the trial
court sentenced him to any time in county jail. Our supreme court has held that when there
is a discrepancy between the written sentencing order and the oral pronouncement of
sentence, it is the written sentencing order that controls. See Vance v. State,
serious bodily harm, and thus, no exigent circumstances existed authorizing the officer’s
opening of the car door and entry into appellant’s vehicle; (3) the police officer illegally
searched appellant’s vehicle by opening the driver’s door and leaning into appellant’s vehicle;
and (4) the police officer illegally seized appellant by opening the driver’s door, entering
appellant’s vehicle, turning off appellant’s vehicle, and removing and taking possession of the
keys to the vehicle. However, we cannot address the merits at this time because appellant
failed to comply with the Arkansas Supreme Court’s rules governing the contents of the
abstract and addendum.
An appellant must include in the addendum those exhibits that are essential for our
court to understand the case, including computer disks and DVDs, if applicable. Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2014). Here, the video recording of the officer’s dashboard camera,
as referenced in appellant’s argument, was made part of the record and was essential to the trial
court’s consideration of his argument regarding an alleged illegal search and seizure. In our
de novo review of suppression issues, we necessarily would need to review the entirety of the
evidence before the trial court, which would include the DVD of this recording. Although
appellant’s addendum is flagrantly deficient, the deficiency does not require complete
rebriefing. Therefore, we order appellant to file a supplemental addendum within seven
calendar days to provide the video exhibit to the members of our court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
2(b)(4) (2014); see also Benca v. Benton Cnty. Circuit Court,
