Traylor v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Traylor v. State

795 S.W.2d 361, 303 Ark. 287, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 434

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

DocketCR 90-119

StatusPublished

This text of 795 S.W.2d 361 (Traylor 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

Traylor v. State, 795 S.W.2d 361, 303 Ark. 287, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 434 (Ark. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Dale Price, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of breaking or entering, theft of property, and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He raises six issues on appeal. Five of those issues involve direct attacks on his conviction. We consider only the sixth issue in which the appellant claims the trial court should have ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Less than thirty days after his conviction, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial asserting that his representation at trial had been inadequate. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.4. The motion was filed in . a timely manner and new counsel was appointed. However, the record does not reflect that the motion was ever acted upon by the trial court. Therefore, as in Mobbs v. State, 303 Ark. 98, 792 S.W.2d 601 (1990), we do not reach the merits of the case. We remand to the trial court for consideration of the post-conviction motion.

Remanded.

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

Dale Price, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of breaking or entering, theft of property, and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He raises six issues on appeal. Five of those issues involve direct attacks on his conviction. We consider only the sixth issue in which the appellant claims the trial court should have ordered a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Less than thirty days after his conviction, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial asserting that his representation at trial had been inadequate. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.4. The motion was filed in . a timely manner and new counsel was appointed. However, the record does not reflect that the motion was ever acted upon by the trial court. Therefore, as in Mobbs v. State, 303 Ark. 98, 792 S.W.2d 601 (1990), we do not reach the merits of the case. We remand to the trial court for consideration of the post-conviction motion.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 S.W.2d 361, 303 Ark. 287, 1990 Ark. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traylor-v-state-ark-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack