Virgin v. AL LOCKHART

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Virgin v. AL LOCKHART

702 S.W.2d 9, 288 Ark. 92, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1723

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

Docket85-223

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 702 S.W.2d 9 (Virgin v. AL LOCKHART) 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

Virgin v. AL LOCKHART, 702 S.W.2d 9, 288 Ark. 92, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1723 (Ark. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant who is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Department to reassess his parole eligibility status. The circuit court denied the petition and the record has now been lodged on appeal. We denied appellant’s first motion for appointment of counsel in this appeal because he stated no grounds. He has filed a motion to reconsider, contending that he has a right to counsel.

In criminal cases the accused has a constitutional right to counsel at trial. There is no corresponding right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding, Dyer v. State, 258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975), or in a civil action. See Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971); see also Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F. Supp. 1083 (W. D. Mo. 1978). Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the circuit court nor this Court is obligated to provide an attorney to perfect an appeal if the petition is denied.

In those cases where the appellant is able to make a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot proceed without counsel, however, we will appoint an attorney on appeal. Appellant here has not established that the circumstances of his case require appointment of counsel.

Motion denied.

Purtle, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant who is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Department to reassess his parole eligibility status. The circuit court denied the petition and the record has now been lodged on appeal. We denied appellant’s first motion for appointment of counsel in this appeal because he stated no grounds. He has filed a motion to reconsider, contending that he has a right to counsel.

In criminal cases the accused has a constitutional right to counsel at trial. There is no corresponding right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding, Dyer v. State, 258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975), or in a civil action. See Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971); see also Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F. Supp. 1083 (W. D. Mo. 1978). Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the circuit court nor this Court is obligated to provide an attorney to perfect an appeal if the petition is denied.

In those cases where the appellant is able to make a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot proceed without counsel, however, we will appoint an attorney on appeal. Appellant here has not established that the circumstances of his case require appointment of counsel.

Motion denied.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 S.W.2d 9, 288 Ark. 92, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virgin-v-al-lockhart-ark-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack