Dexter Dodson v. State of Arkansas

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 100 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-26-130

Opinion Delivered: May 7, 2026 DEXTER DODSON APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE SHOW-CAUSE ORDER ISSUED.

PER CURIAM

Dexter Dodson filed a motion for rule on clerk because he paid James Law Firm to

represent him on appeal and the firm never perfected his appeal. Drew Curtis, supervised

by Bill James, filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2024. They then failed to file a compliant

record and lodge the appeal with this court. Now, nearly two years later, Dodson asks to

proceed with his appeal. By separate order, we grant Dodson’s motion. But here we are

concerned with Curtis’s and James’s conduct and order them to explain their failure to file

a compliant record for two years.

We do so because this does not appear to be an isolated incident. On the contrary,

it appears that Curtis and James filed a notice of appeal and then failed to perfect an appeal

in at least three other cases: State v. Velazquez-Diaz, 72CR-20-1484; State v. Lewis, 53CR-

22-57; State v. Wilburn, 16JCR-22-1356. That pattern raises concerns, and to protect both

the public and litigants, we order Curtis and James to explain their conduct both in this case and in the other cases listed above and explain why they should not receive sanctions. Their

response must be filed before May 14, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

Show-cause order issued.

WOOD and WEBB, JJ., dissent.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. This is a matter

for the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (OPC) The

allegations concern breaches in professional responsibility, not contempt of this court’s

orders. We are not a trial court, so the allegations will necessarily have to be investigated.

That means that we will have to appoint a special master to take evidence. Conversely, the

OPC has the machinery in place to investigate, and if the allegations are found to have

merit, sanction the attorneys who have appeared in Mr. Dodson’s appeal. Referring these

attorneys to the OPC better serves Due Process and judicial economy.

Meanwhile, the James Law Firm is still counsel of record. Before considering

whether to grant Mr. Dodson’s motion to represent himself, I would order the James Law

Firm to give the court a status report on the case, to file any motions required by our

appellate rules, prepare the file for transfer to another attorney, and secure Mr. Dodson’s

permission to file a motion to withdraw.

WOOD, J., joins.