Hill v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 06 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Parties | Arthur L. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 77-215. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appellant Arthur Hill was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment on July 2, 1976. No appeal from his conviction was taken. On May 5, 1977, appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37, which was denied after a hearing on May 24, 1977. From the denial of appellant's postconviction petition comes this appeal.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to be relieved as attorney of record, but in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), has submitted a brief stating there is no merit to the appeal. On January 28, 1978, appellant filed a pro se brief alleging no points for reversal but requesting this Court to reverse the findings of the circuit court. The State concurs with appellant's counsel that there is no merit to this appeal.
Appellant was represented by John Achor, Chief Deputy Public Defender, at trial. In addition to an allegation which was not proper for postconviction relief, in his postconviction petition, appellant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the failure to call a certain witness. Harold Hall, Public Defender, was appointed by the circuit court to represent appellant at the postconviction proceeding and presently on appeal. The alleged testimony of the witness who was not called to the stand was refuted by the State. However, counsel at the postconviction proceedings, upon diligent investigation, might have discovered other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court requires that counsel represent an indigent with all the zeal and competence that one would a paying client. We question the procedure whereby one public defender is appointed to represent an indigent alleging ineffective assistance of counsel of another public defender as being one in which a conflict of interest would inevitably arise. We suggest the better practice is to appoint counsel at postconviction proceedings wherein allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are raised who does not practice law on a day to day basis with the lawyer against whom the allegations are made. The same rule would apply to members of the same law firm.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Banks
...in other jurisdictions have found that the conflicts require disqualification of fellow public defenders. See Hill v. State (1978), 263 Ark. 478, 480, 566 S.W.2d 127, 127 (where one assistant public defender represents indigent alleging ineffective assistance by another assistant public def......
-
Dennis v. State
...to relieve Devine interfered with Devine's ability to represent him and denied him assistance of counsel. Citing Hi ll v. State , 263 Ark. 478, 566 S.W.2d 127 (1978), Dennis argues that defense counsel was in the best position to determine whether a conflict existed. In response, the State ......
-
Simpson v. State
...under particular state ethics rules, not under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Hill v. State, 263 Ark. 478, 566 S.W.2d 127, 127 (1978) (per curiam) (reversing and remanding denial of postconviction relief after public defender of Pulaski County represented defenda......
-
Isom v. State
...Isom's other trial attorneys, Colvin and Potts. As his primary support, Isom cites this court's opinion in Hill v. State, 263 Ark. 478, 566 S.W.2d 127 (1978) (per curiam), in which we held that appointment of one public defender to represent an indigent criminal defendant who alleges ineffe......