Lee v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Lee v. State

233 S.W.3d 674, 366 Ark. 172

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 13, 2006

DocketCR 99-1116

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 674 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 233 S.W.3d 674, 366 Ark. 172 (Ark. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Ledell Lee moves this court to recall its mandate affirming the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. See Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702, 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001). At this time, however, we are unable to address the merits of Appellant’s motion, as his counsel, Deborah Sailings, has failed to request this court to appoint her to represent Appellant in the instant proceedings. Pursuant to this court’s decision in Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Rule 37.5 and must be appointed by this court.

Accordingly, Ms. Sailings has fifteen days from the issuance of this per curiam to comply with the requirements ofRule 37.5 and Hill.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Ledell Lee moves this court to recall its mandate affirming the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. See Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702, 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001). At this time, however, we are unable to address the merits of Appellant’s motion, as his counsel, Deborah Sailings, has failed to request this court to appoint her to represent Appellant in the instant proceedings. Pursuant to this court’s decision in Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Rule 37.5 and must be appointed by this court.

Accordingly, Ms. Sailings has fifteen days from the issuance of this per curiam to comply with the requirements ofRule 37.5 and Hill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 674, 366 Ark. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-ark-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack