Malone v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Malone v. State

724 S.W.2d 180, 291 Ark. 315, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 1959

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

DocketCR 86-206

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 724 S.W.2d 180 (Malone 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

Malone v. State, 724 S.W.2d 180, 291 Ark. 315, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 1959 (Ark. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

William L. Wharton has filed a petition asking to be relieved as counsel on appeal for appellant, Herbert Malone. A pro se motion has been filed by Malone seeking the same relief. Both parties explain that a conflict has developed between them such that Wharton can no longer serve as counsel. We deny the petition.

Arkansas R. Crim. P. Rule 36.26 states that an attorney has a duty to continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal unless permitted to withdraw by the trial court or this court “in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause.”

The “interest of justice” does not require that Wharton be relieved as counsel. While it is obvious from the correspondence attached to Wharton’s motion as exhibits that animosity exists between Malone and the attorney, that is not sufficient cause to replace Wharton. Malone has a right to an attorney on appeal, but he does not have a right to an attorney of his choosing. See Urquhart v. State, 275 Ark. 486, 631 S.W.2d 304 (1982). Nothing has been presented to this court that indicates Wharton cannot do a competent job on appeal, and there is no reason to permit a substitution of counsel that will only serve to delay the appellate process.

Accordingly, both motions are denied.

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

Per Curiam.

William L. Wharton has filed a petition asking to be relieved as counsel on appeal for appellant, Herbert Malone. A pro se motion has been filed by Malone seeking the same relief. Both parties explain that a conflict has developed between them such that Wharton can no longer serve as counsel. We deny the petition.

Arkansas R. Crim. P. Rule 36.26 states that an attorney has a duty to continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal unless permitted to withdraw by the trial court or this court “in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause.”

The “interest of justice” does not require that Wharton be relieved as counsel. While it is obvious from the correspondence attached to Wharton’s motion as exhibits that animosity exists between Malone and the attorney, that is not sufficient cause to replace Wharton. Malone has a right to an attorney on appeal, but he does not have a right to an attorney of his choosing. See Urquhart v. State, 275 Ark. 486, 631 S.W.2d 304 (1982). Nothing has been presented to this court that indicates Wharton cannot do a competent job on appeal, and there is no reason to permit a substitution of counsel that will only serve to delay the appellate process.

Accordingly, both motions are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 S.W.2d 180, 291 Ark. 315, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 1959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malone-v-state-ark-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack