Baker v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Baker v. State

941 S.W.2d 426, 328 Ark. 140, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 217

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 14, 1997

DocketCR 96-502

StatusPublished

This text of 941 S.W.2d 426 (Baker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. State, 941 S.W.2d 426, 328 Ark. 140, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 217 (Ark. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Terrell Demond Baker was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and theft of property and sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-five years’ imprisonment. His retained counsel, Tell Hulett, filed a brief contending that the appeal is without merit. The State has filed a motion asking that we direct appellant to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 — 3(j) (1), which requires that a no-merit brief contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the appellant made by the trial court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party, along with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. See also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Since the filing of appellant’s brief, Mr. Hulett is now deceased. We deny the State’s motion at this time, and grant the appellant a period of thirty days in which to obtain new counsel.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellant Terrell Demond Baker was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and theft of property and sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-five years’ imprisonment. His retained counsel, Tell Hulett, filed a brief contending that the appeal is without merit. The State has filed a motion asking that we direct appellant to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 — 3(j) (1), which requires that a no-merit brief contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the appellant made by the trial court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party, along with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. See also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Since the filing of appellant’s brief, Mr. Hulett is now deceased. We deny the State’s motion at this time, and grant the appellant a period of thirty days in which to obtain new counsel.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

941 S.W.2d 426, 328 Ark. 140, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-state-ark-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack