Mills v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Mills v. State

66 S.W.3d 643, 347 Ark. 695, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 111

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 14, 2002

DocketCR. 02-67

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 S.W.3d 643 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 66 S.W.3d 643, 347 Ark. 695, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 111 (Ark. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

P ER CURIAM.

Ben Beland, a state-salaried, full-time public defender for the Twelfth Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent Appellant Buckie Mills, an indigent defendant, in his rape and kidnaping case. Following a trial, Mills was sentenced to life in prison without parole. A timely notice of appeal and request for the transcribed record have been filed.

Mr. Beland now asks to be relieved as counsel for Mr. Mills in this criminal appeal as a result of this court’s decision in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000). In Rushing, this court determined that state-salaried, full-time public defenders were ineligible for compensation by the court for work performed in the appeal of a matter in which the public defender represented the defendant. In Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000), we relieved appellant’s court-appointed public defender and appointed new counsel on appeal under similar circumstances. See also, Craft v. State, 342 Ark. 57, 26 S.W.3d 584 (2000); McFerrin v. State, 342 Ark. 61, 26 S.W.3d 429 (2000); Bolton v. State, 342 Ark. 55, 26 S.W.3d 783 (2000).

Since the time of these decisions, however, the law has changed. In the most recent legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly amended Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604 through Act 1370 of 2001, which now provides that “[p]ersons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state funded secretary may also seek compensation for appellate work from the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals.” Mr. Beland’s motion to be relieved as counsel on appeal is denied because the motion does not contain information regarding whether he is provided a state-funded secretary. Mr. Beland may resubmit his motion, providing information about whether he is provided a state-funded secretary, in order for us to determine whether he qualifies for dismissal in fight of the amendment to Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604.

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

P ER CURIAM.

Ben Beland, a state-salaried, full-time public defender for the Twelfth Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent Appellant Buckie Mills, an indigent defendant, in his rape and kidnaping case. Following a trial, Mills was sentenced to life in prison without parole. A timely notice of appeal and request for the transcribed record have been filed.

Mr. Beland now asks to be relieved as counsel for Mr. Mills in this criminal appeal as a result of this court’s decision in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000). In Rushing, this court determined that state-salaried, full-time public defenders were ineligible for compensation by the court for work performed in the appeal of a matter in which the public defender represented the defendant. In Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000), we relieved appellant’s court-appointed public defender and appointed new counsel on appeal under similar circumstances. See also, Craft v. State, 342 Ark. 57, 26 S.W.3d 584 (2000); McFerrin v. State, 342 Ark. 61, 26 S.W.3d 429 (2000); Bolton v. State, 342 Ark. 55, 26 S.W.3d 783 (2000).

Since the time of these decisions, however, the law has changed. In the most recent legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly amended Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604 through Act 1370 of 2001, which now provides that “[p]ersons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state funded secretary may also seek compensation for appellate work from the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals.” Mr. Beland’s motion to be relieved as counsel on appeal is denied because the motion does not contain information regarding whether he is provided a state-funded secretary. Mr. Beland may resubmit his motion, providing information about whether he is provided a state-funded secretary, in order for us to determine whether he qualifies for dismissal in fight of the amendment to Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.W.3d 643, 347 Ark. 695, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-ark-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack