Strong v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Strong v. State

257 S.W.3d 80, 370 Ark. 87, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 309

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 17, 2007

DocketCR 06-1346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 S.W.3d 80 (Strong 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

Strong v. State, 257 S.W.3d 80, 370 Ark. 87, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 309 (Ark. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On April 20, 2007, Randel Miller, attorney for Appellant Richard Strong, filed a second motion to withdraw or, in the alternative, a motion for extension of time to file a brief. In his motion, Miller claimed that “a conflict has recently arisen between counsel and [Appellant]” that would require his withdrawal from the case. Miller stated that Appellant filed a complaint against him with the Committee on Professional Conduct, but Miller did not attach such an exhibit to his motion. Miller now requests that we grant his motion to withdraw.

Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure - Criminal provides:

(a) Trial counsel, whether retained or court appointed, shall continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, unless permitted by the trial court to withdraw in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause. After the notice of appeal of a judgment of conviction has been filed, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to relieve counsel and appoint new counsel.

The United States Supreme Court recognized in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), that defense counsel is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial. The Supreme Court also stated in Holloway that defense attorneys have the obligation to advise the court at once upon discovering a conflict of interest. See id.

Here, we grant Miller’s motion for extension of time to file a brief and order him to file a brief within thirty days. We deny Miller’s motion to withdraw at this time. However, we will consider a subsequent motion to withdraw if an entry of appearance of new counsel, an affidavit of indigency, or a petition to appear pro se are submitted simultaneously with a motion to withdraw. These motions must be filed within thirty days of this order.

Motion to withdraw denied; motion for extension of time granted.

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

Per Curiam.

On April 20, 2007, Randel Miller, attorney for Appellant Richard Strong, filed a second motion to withdraw or, in the alternative, a motion for extension of time to file a brief. In his motion, Miller claimed that “a conflict has recently arisen between counsel and [Appellant]” that would require his withdrawal from the case. Miller stated that Appellant filed a complaint against him with the Committee on Professional Conduct, but Miller did not attach such an exhibit to his motion. Miller now requests that we grant his motion to withdraw.

Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure - Criminal provides:

(a) Trial counsel, whether retained or court appointed, shall continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, unless permitted by the trial court to withdraw in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause. After the notice of appeal of a judgment of conviction has been filed, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to relieve counsel and appoint new counsel.

The United States Supreme Court recognized in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), that defense counsel is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial. The Supreme Court also stated in Holloway that defense attorneys have the obligation to advise the court at once upon discovering a conflict of interest. See id.

Here, we grant Miller’s motion for extension of time to file a brief and order him to file a brief within thirty days. We deny Miller’s motion to withdraw at this time. However, we will consider a subsequent motion to withdraw if an entry of appearance of new counsel, an affidavit of indigency, or a petition to appear pro se are submitted simultaneously with a motion to withdraw. These motions must be filed within thirty days of this order.

Motion to withdraw denied; motion for extension of time granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.W.3d 80, 370 Ark. 87, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-state-ark-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack