Tubbs v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Tubbs v. State

242 S.W.3d 264, 367 Ark. 615

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 2, 2006

DocketCR 06-945

StatusPublished

This text of 242 S.W.3d 264 (Tubbs 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

Tubbs v. State, 242 S.W.3d 264, 367 Ark. 615 (Ark. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

AppeEant Stacy Tubbs has filed a motion to substitute privately retained counsel, James Bennett, in place of his court-appointed attorney, Robert Jeffrey, to represent him in his appeal pending before this court.

In the present case, the motion to substitute counsel was filed by Bennett. Jeffrey has heretofore not filed a motion to withdraw, as required by Rule 16 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure — Criminal, stating reasons for the attempted withdrawal. Moreover, he has continued to act, both prior to and subsequent to the present motion, on Appellant’s behalf. Thus, we deny the motion without prejudice to it being refiled.

Furthermore, we take this opportunity to note that this motion falls within an area of concern addressed by the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 66 Ark. App. 324, 992 S.W.2d 140 (1999), and Brewer v. State, 64 Ark. App. 372, 984 S.W.2d 65 (1998). Both of these cases discussed a perceived abuse in the process of obtaining appeal transcripts on the part of indigent defendants who were represented by court-appointed counsel and were, therefore, permitted to obtain trial transcripts at the expense of the State and, thereafter, employed privately retained counsel to represent them on appeal. In the present case, just as in the Brewer cases, we are concerned with Appellant’s recent ability to obtain private counsel after his use of a court-appointed attorney and State funds to obtain his transcript for appeal.

Denied without prejudice.

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

Per Curiam.

AppeEant Stacy Tubbs has filed a motion to substitute privately retained counsel, James Bennett, in place of his court-appointed attorney, Robert Jeffrey, to represent him in his appeal pending before this court.

In the present case, the motion to substitute counsel was filed by Bennett. Jeffrey has heretofore not filed a motion to withdraw, as required by Rule 16 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure — Criminal, stating reasons for the attempted withdrawal. Moreover, he has continued to act, both prior to and subsequent to the present motion, on Appellant’s behalf. Thus, we deny the motion without prejudice to it being refiled.

Furthermore, we take this opportunity to note that this motion falls within an area of concern addressed by the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 66 Ark. App. 324, 992 S.W.2d 140 (1999), and Brewer v. State, 64 Ark. App. 372, 984 S.W.2d 65 (1998). Both of these cases discussed a perceived abuse in the process of obtaining appeal transcripts on the part of indigent defendants who were represented by court-appointed counsel and were, therefore, permitted to obtain trial transcripts at the expense of the State and, thereafter, employed privately retained counsel to represent them on appeal. In the present case, just as in the Brewer cases, we are concerned with Appellant’s recent ability to obtain private counsel after his use of a court-appointed attorney and State funds to obtain his transcript for appeal.

Denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 S.W.3d 264, 367 Ark. 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tubbs-v-state-ark-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack