Title: Robert Alfred Williams v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-1084
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07­1084 ROBERT ALFRED WILLIAMS Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered December 6, 2007 PRO SE PETITION FOR REVIEW [CACR 06­1180] [CIRCUIT COURT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, CR 2005­145, HON. LARRY CHANDLER, JUDGE] PETITION DISMISSED. PER CURIAM A jury found petitioner Robert Alfred Williams guilty of aggravated robbery and first­degree battery and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 1680 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department ofCorrection. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Williamsv. State, CACR 06­1180 (Ark. App. Oct. 3, 2007). Petitioner has filed a pro se pleading with our clerk seeking review of that decision, which was accordingly filed in this court as a petition for review under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1­2(b). We dismiss the petition because the pleading was filed pro se. Mr. William O. James, Jr. was appointed to represent petitioner on appeal and did so, submitting a brief on his behalf. An appellant is not entitled to accept appointment of counsel to represent him and also proceed pro se. Brewer v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Nov. 15, 2007); Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d 615 (2002). This court will not permit an appellant to compete with his attorneyto be heard in an appeal. Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (per curiam); see also Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 ­2­ (1991) (per curiam). As we explained in Monts, counsel possesses the superior ability to examine the record, research the law and marshal arguments in the defendant’s behalf. With the exception of certain fundamental decisions, it is the attorney’s duty to take professional responsibility for the conduct of the case, after consulting with his client. Monts, 305 Ark. at 206, 806 S.W.2d at 381­382. An appellant has no constitutional right to participate in his representation on direct appeal. Fudge v. State, 341 Ark. 652, 19 S.W.3d 22 (2000) (per curiam). It is for Mr. James to decide whether it is appropriate to submit a petition to this court for review of the decision by the court of appeals. We will not allow petitioner to substitute his judgment concerning how and whether to request review for that of his attorney. Accordingly, we need not address the merits of the petition, and it is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.