Mejia v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Mejia v. State

235 S.W.3d 519, 366 Ark. 348

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 11, 2006

DocketCR 06-442

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 S.W.3d 519 (Mejia 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

Mejia v. State, 235 S.W.3d 519, 366 Ark. 348 (Ark. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Timothy C. Sharum, a full-time, state-salaried public defender in Sebastian County, the Twelfth Judicial District, was appointed to represent Appellant, Nathan H. Mejia, an indigent defendant. On September 14, 2005, a hearing was held on the State’s Petition to Revoke and the court found that Mr. Mejia violated the terms and conditions of his suspended imposition of sentence and he was sentenced to three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. A notice of appeal was timely filed and the record has been timely lodged in this Court.

Mr. Sharum now asks to be relieved as counsel on direct appeal based upon Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000) (holding that full-time, state-salaried public defenders were ineligible for compensation for their work on appeal) and Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000) (relieving Appellant’s court appointed public defender and appointing new counsel on appeal). Since Rushing, and Tester, the General Assembly passed legislation providing that only those full-time, state-salaried public defenders who do not have a state-funded secretary may seek compensation for their work on appeal. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2003).

Mr. Sharum states in his motion that he is provided with a full-time, state-funded secretary who maintains his office operations. Accordingly, we grant his motion to withdraw as attorney. Mr. David Dunagin has stated his willingness to accept appointment in this case and will be substituted as counsel for Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

Timothy C. Sharum, a full-time, state-salaried public defender in Sebastian County, the Twelfth Judicial District, was appointed to represent Appellant, Nathan H. Mejia, an indigent defendant. On September 14, 2005, a hearing was held on the State’s Petition to Revoke and the court found that Mr. Mejia violated the terms and conditions of his suspended imposition of sentence and he was sentenced to three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. A notice of appeal was timely filed and the record has been timely lodged in this Court.

Mr. Sharum now asks to be relieved as counsel on direct appeal based upon Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000) (holding that full-time, state-salaried public defenders were ineligible for compensation for their work on appeal) and Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000) (relieving Appellant’s court appointed public defender and appointing new counsel on appeal). Since Rushing, and Tester, the General Assembly passed legislation providing that only those full-time, state-salaried public defenders who do not have a state-funded secretary may seek compensation for their work on appeal. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2003).

Mr. Sharum states in his motion that he is provided with a full-time, state-funded secretary who maintains his office operations. Accordingly, we grant his motion to withdraw as attorney. Mr. David Dunagin has stated his willingness to accept appointment in this case and will be substituted as counsel for Appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.W.3d 519, 366 Ark. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-state-ark-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack