Title: Jarrett v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Cite as 2009 Ark. 586 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 09-974 TERRANCE QUARTEZ JARRETT Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered November 19, 2009 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED PETITION FOR REVIEW [CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FT. SMITH DISTRICT, CR 2003-305, CR 2003- 382, CR 2003-283, CR 2003-384] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM Terrance Quartez Jarrett appealed the revocation of his suspended sentence in four cases. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Jarrett v. State, CACR 08-1295 (Ark. App. May 13, 2009) (unpublished). On August 31, 2009, petitioner Jarrett, who was represented by counsel on appeal, tendered a pro se petition for review to this court after the eighteen days to file such a petition had elapsed. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(a). Our clerk correctly declined to file the untimely petition, and petitioner asks that we direct our clerk to file it. This court will not permit an appellant to compete with his attorney to be heard in an appeal. Winston v. State, 2009 Ark. 438 (per curiam); Brewer v. State, 371 Ark. 532, 268 S.W.3d 332 (2007) (per curiam); Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (per curiam). The right to counsel does not provide the right for an appellant to substitute his or her judgment for counsel's professional judgment. See Hadley v. State, 322 Ark. 472, 910 S.W.2d 675 (1995). Cite as 2009 Ark. 586 Here, petitioner was represented by counsel who did not elect to file a petition for review. While petitioner contends in the motion that he was not made aware that the revocation had been affirmed until it was too late for him to submit a timely pro se petition, he has offered nothing to demonstrate he was entitled to file a pro se petition for review. Motion denied. 2