Salam v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Salam v. State

783 S.W.2d 63, 301 Ark. 347, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 77

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1990

DocketRC 89-61

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 783 S.W.2d 63 (Salam 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

Salam v. State, 783 S.W.2d 63, 301 Ark. 347, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 77 (Ark. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For the reasons set out in Salam v. State, 300 Ark. 630, 781 S.W.2d 30 (1989), we remanded this case so the trial court could conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning whether the petitioner had waived his right to appeal his November 19,1981 conviction for attempted rape. The trial court has conducted its hearing and from the testimony elicited at that hearing, it found the petitioner had requested his counsel to appeal the November 19,1981 conviction, but for no good cause, the appeal was not perfected. The trial court further concluded that the petitioner never waived his right to appeal.

In view of the trial court’s findings and conclusions and the decisions entered by the United States Eighth Circuit Court and the United States Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas noted in our earlier per curiam, we grant the petitioner’s and state’s joint motion for a belated appeal. Having previously appointed Mr. David Hodges as petitioner’s counsel in this proceeding, we continue that appointment so he may represent petitioner in his appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

For the reasons set out in Salam v. State, 300 Ark. 630, 781 S.W.2d 30 (1989), we remanded this case so the trial court could conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning whether the petitioner had waived his right to appeal his November 19,1981 conviction for attempted rape. The trial court has conducted its hearing and from the testimony elicited at that hearing, it found the petitioner had requested his counsel to appeal the November 19,1981 conviction, but for no good cause, the appeal was not perfected. The trial court further concluded that the petitioner never waived his right to appeal.

In view of the trial court’s findings and conclusions and the decisions entered by the United States Eighth Circuit Court and the United States Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas noted in our earlier per curiam, we grant the petitioner’s and state’s joint motion for a belated appeal. Having previously appointed Mr. David Hodges as petitioner’s counsel in this proceeding, we continue that appointment so he may represent petitioner in his appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 S.W.2d 63, 301 Ark. 347, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salam-v-state-ark-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack