Case ID: ark_366/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ledell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas
    CR 99-1116
    233 S.W.3d 674
    Supreme Court of Arkansas
    Opinion delivered April 13, 2006
    
      
      Cauley, Bowman, Carney, & Williams, PLLC, by: Deborah Sailings; and Public Interest Litigation Clinic, Kansas City, Missouri, by: Kent E. Gipson and William C. Odie, for appellant.
    
      Mike Beebe, Att’y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Appellant Ledell Lee moves this court to recall its mandate affirming the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. See Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702, 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001). At this time, however, we are unable to address the merits of Appellant’s motion, as his counsel, Deborah Sailings, has failed to request this court to appoint her to represent Appellant in the instant proceedings. Pursuant to this court’s decision in Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Rule 37.5 and must be appointed by this court.

Accordingly, Ms. Sailings has fifteen days from the issuance of this per curiam to comply with the requirements ofRule 37.5 and Hill.