Opinion
No. CR 79-19
Opinion delivered March 31, 1986
APPEAL ERROR — COUNSEL APPOINTED AND BRIEF FILED — COUNSEL RELIEVED — APPELLANT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING BRIEF. — Where appellant was appointed competent counsel who filed an appellate brief, but appellant refused the assistance of counsel and voluntarily elected to exercise his right to represent himself, the court considered the brief filed by counsel to be withdrawn when counsel was relieved and appellant was responsible for filing a brief which conforms to court rules and which fully presents all his arguments for reversal.
Pro Se Motion to File Supplemental Brief on Appeal; denied.
Appellant, pro se.
Steve Clark, Atty Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellee.
Earnest Lee Wade was convicted of second degree escape and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. He was declared a pauper, and Betty Dickey was appointed to represent him on appeal. After Dickey filed the appellant's brief, appellant Wade asked that she be relieved and that he be allowed to proceed pro se. We granted the motion.
Appellant now asks permission to "supplement" the brief filed by Dickey. What he is actually requesting, however, is not to supplement the brief but rather to adopt counsel's brief but substitute his own argument on one point for the argument written by counsel. Appellant has attached to his motion the pro se brief he intends to file if this motion is granted. It does not conform to our rules.
The motion is denied. Appellant was appointed competent counsel. He chose to refuse her assistance by voluntarily electing to exercise his right to represent himself. We considered the brief filed by counsel to be withdrawn when counsel was relieved. Since the attorney's brief is no longer subject to consideration, appellant is responsible for filing a brief which conforms to our rules and which fully presents all his arguments for reversal. See Green v. State, 277 Ark. 129, 639 S.W.2d 512 (1982).
Motion denied.
PURTLE, J., not participating.