ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-16-31
TABARICK SIMINGTON Opinion Delivered June 1, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SHARP
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NOS. CR-2012-68 AND CR-2012-69]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN,
APPELLEE JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
On September 16, 2015, the Sharp County Circuit Court revoked Tabarick M.
Simington’s probation and sentenced him to a term of 180 months’ imprisonment on one
count of theft of property for 120 months; suspended imposition of sentence on a second
count of theft of property; and found that Simington owed $145,000 in restitution. Simington
appeals the revocation of his probation.
From the abstract, we can glean from the testimony that one of the terms and
conditions of Simington’s probation was to pay a fine, fees and restitution. The State filed a
petition to revoke alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation. After
a hearing, the circuit court found that Simington had violated those conditions, revoked his
probation, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment and suspended imposition of
sentence. Simington argues that the revocation is not supported by sufficient evidence of a
Cite as
violation. We order rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the appellant submit an
addendum containing all the relevant orders, pleadings, documents, and exhibits in the record
that are essential to an understanding of the case. Specifically, Simington has failed to include
in the addendum the order containing the terms and conditions of his probation; however,
we encourage appellant to review our rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist.
We have long held that the suspension or probation order and its terms or conditions
are essential to our review of a revocation order based on a finding that those terms had been
violated and that those items must therefore be included in the abstract or addendum. See, e.g.,
Taylor v. State,
.
In accord with our requirement that the party rebrief where essential materials have
been omitted from the abstract and addendum, we allow appellant fifteen days from the date
of this opinion in which to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum to cure any and all
deficiencies, at his own expense. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
Rebriefing ordered.
VAUGHT and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.
R.T. Starken, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Garrett Morgan, Law
Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the
Bar of the Supreme Court under the Supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson, Deputy Att’y Gen.,
for appellee.
2
