Britt v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Britt v. State

942 S.W.2d 251, 328 Ark. 141, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 226

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Britt v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 334 Ark. 142 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided April 14, 1997·No. CR 97-200·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Ronald C. Wilson, attorney for appellant, Antonio Britt, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, stating that it would be in the best interest of all concerned.

The motion further states that another attorney, Don Forrest, has expressed an interest in handling the case. However, as of this date, no motion to appoint substitute counsel has been filed on behalf of appellant.

The motion is, therefore, denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Ronald C. Wilson, attorney for appellant, Antonio Britt, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, stating that it would be in the best interest of all concerned.

The motion further states that another attorney, Don Forrest, has expressed an interest in handling the case. However, as of this date, no motion to appoint substitute counsel has been filed on behalf of appellant.

The motion is, therefore, denied.

Britt v. State, 942 S.W.2d 251, 328 Ark. 141, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 226 (Ark. 1997).

Pincite

942 S.W.2d 251 (Britt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.