Ronald L. Mishion v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR07-321
Opinion Delivered April 26, 2007
RONALD L. MISHION,
APPELLANT,
VS.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
ATTORNEY
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
John Joplin, a full-time, state-salaried public defender in Sebastian County, was
appointed by the trial court to represent appellant, Ronald L. Mishion, an indigent defendant,
in connection with a petition to revoke filed by the State. Following a hearing held on
August 9, 2006, the circuit court found that appellant violated the terms of his suspended
sentence and sentenced him to serve then years in the Arkansas Department of Correction,
with an additional suspended sentence of ten years. A timely notice of appeal was filed with
the circuit clerk, and the record has been lodged in this court.
Mr. Joplin now asks to be relieved as counsel for appellant in this criminal appeal,
based upon the cases of Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000) (holding that
full-time, state-salaried public defenders were ineligible for compensation for their work on
appeal) and Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000) (per curiam) (relieving
appellant's court-appointed public defender and appointing new counsel on appeal).
Since the time of those decisions, the law was changed by the General Assembly. Act
1370 of 2001 provides in part: “[P]ersons employed as full-time public defenders, who are not
provided a state-funded secretary, may also seek compensation for appellate work from the
Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals.” That provision is now codified
as Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2001).
Mr. Joplin's motion states that he is provided with a full-time, state-funded secretary.
Accordingly, we grant his motion to withdraw as attorney. Mr. David L. Dunagin will be
substituted as attorney for appellant in this matter. The Clerk will establish a new briefing
schedule.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.