Reed v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Reed v. State

912 S.W.2d 929, 323 Ark. 28, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

DocketCR 95-392

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 912 S.W.2d 929 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 912 S.W.2d 929, 323 Ark. 28, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 8 (Ark. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

Appellant, Benny Reed, appeals a judgment of the Union County Circuit Court convicting him of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to the Arkansas Department of Correction for forty years and ten years respectively. We granted his motion for rule on the clerk. Reed v. State, 320 Ark. 515, 899 S.W.2d 53 (1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2).

Appellant raises four points for reversal, all of which are claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial. It is well established that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal unless the issue was considered by the trial court, as on a motion for new trial. E.g., Pipkin v. State, 321 Ark. 511, 905 S.W.2d 827 (1995) (citing Sumlin v. State, 319 Ark. 312, 891 S.W.2d 375 (1995)). The rationale behind this rule of law is that an evidentiary hearing and finding as to the competency of appellant’s counsel by the trial court better equips the appellate court on review to examine in detail the sufficiency of the representation. Kanig v. State, 321 Ark. 515, 905 S.W.2d 847 (1995).

Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, nor did he raise the issue of his counsel’s ineffectiveness during trial. See Tisdale v. State, 311 Ark. 220, 843 S.W.2d 803 (1992). Because appellant failed to preserve below the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.

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

Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

Appellant, Benny Reed, appeals a judgment of the Union County Circuit Court convicting him of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to the Arkansas Department of Correction for forty years and ten years respectively. We granted his motion for rule on the clerk. Reed v. State, 320 Ark. 515, 899 S.W.2d 53 (1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2).

Appellant raises four points for reversal, all of which are claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial. It is well established that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal unless the issue was considered by the trial court, as on a motion for new trial. E.g., Pipkin v. State, 321 Ark. 511, 905 S.W.2d 827 (1995) (citing Sumlin v. State, 319 Ark. 312, 891 S.W.2d 375 (1995)). The rationale behind this rule of law is that an evidentiary hearing and finding as to the competency of appellant’s counsel by the trial court better equips the appellate court on review to examine in detail the sufficiency of the representation. Kanig v. State, 321 Ark. 515, 905 S.W.2d 847 (1995).

Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, nor did he raise the issue of his counsel’s ineffectiveness during trial. See Tisdale v. State, 311 Ark. 220, 843 S.W.2d 803 (1992). Because appellant failed to preserve below the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 S.W.2d 929, 323 Ark. 28, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-ark-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack