Ross v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Ross v. State

39 S.W.3d 458, 344 Ark. 417, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 233

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 5, 2001

DocketCR 01-324

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.W.3d 458 (Ross 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

Ross v. State, 39 S.W.3d 458, 344 Ark. 417, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 233 (Ark. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles E. Ellis, a state-salaried, part-time public defender for the Second Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent appellant Andrew Ross, Jr., an indigent defendant, in this criminal case. Following a jury trial that concluded on August 24, 2000, Ross was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and the circuit court sentenced him to ten years for violating the terms of his probation on a previous charge of theft by receiving. Notices of appeal from the judgments of conviction were timely filed and a record has been lodged with our clerk.

Mr. Ellis now asks this court to relieve him as counsel for Ross in this criminal appeal. As a state-salaried, part-time public defender for the Second Judicial District, Mr. Ellis is ineligible for compensation by this court for work performed in the appeal of this matter pursuant to our opinion in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000). 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). We grant Mr. Ellis’s motion to be relieved for good cause shown. Clay Buchanan will be substituted as attorney for appellant Andrew Ross, Jr., in this matter.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles E. Ellis, a state-salaried, part-time public defender for the Second Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent appellant Andrew Ross, Jr., an indigent defendant, in this criminal case. Following a jury trial that concluded on August 24, 2000, Ross was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and the circuit court sentenced him to ten years for violating the terms of his probation on a previous charge of theft by receiving. Notices of appeal from the judgments of conviction were timely filed and a record has been lodged with our clerk.

Mr. Ellis now asks this court to relieve him as counsel for Ross in this criminal appeal. As a state-salaried, part-time public defender for the Second Judicial District, Mr. Ellis is ineligible for compensation by this court for work performed in the appeal of this matter pursuant to our opinion in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000). 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). We grant Mr. Ellis’s motion to be relieved for good cause shown. Clay Buchanan will be substituted as attorney for appellant Andrew Ross, Jr., in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.W.3d 458, 344 Ark. 417, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-ark-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack