Karon D. Trotter, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­638  Opinion Delivered          December 6, 2007  KARON D. TROTTER, JR.  Petitioner  PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF  ERROR  [CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW  COUNTY, CR 2005­65, HON. SAMUEL  B. POPE, JUDGE]  v.  PETITION DENIED.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Respondent  PER CURIAM  Petitioner  Karon  D.  Trotter,  Jr.,  was  found  guilty  by  a  jury  of  possession  of  drug  paraphernalia,  manufacturing  a  controlled  substance  and  delivering  a  controlled  substance.    An  aggregate sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment was imposed.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals  affirmed.  Trotter v. State, 99 Ark. App. 37, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007).  The court’s mandate was  issued on May 30, 2007.  On August 1, 2007, the court of appeals denied petitioner’s request to file  a belated pro se petition for rehearing.  Petitioner also filed in this court a motion for leave to file a belated petition for review, which  was denied.  Trotter v. State, CR 07­638 (Ark. Oct. 25, 2007) (per curiam).  Petitioner then filed a  motion for this court to set aside the decision, which we treated as a motion for reconsideration of  the motion to file a belated petition for review and denied.  Trotter v. State, CR 07­638 (Ark. Nov.  1, 2007) (per curiam). Now before us is a pro se “petition for writ of error” filed by petitioner on November 7, 2007.  Petitioner reiterates many of the claims already raised in his previous motions and further contends  that  his  petition  for  review  was  timely  tendered  but  not  filed  by  virtue  of  an  error,  or  willful  “obstruction of justice,” on the part of one of our staff attorneys.  As we said when petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, he was represented by  counsel on appeal, and 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) (per  curiam);  Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d 615 (2002).  This court will not permit an  appellant to compete with his attorney to 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  (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 appeal. Monts, 305 Ark. at 206, 806 S.W.2d at 381­382.  Further, 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).  Here, counsel for appellant did not elect to file a petition for review in this court before the  mandate of the court of appeals was issued.  Trotter v. State, CR 07­638 (Ark. Oct. 25, 2007) (per  curiam).  We have found no good cause to allow appellant to proceed pro se in this court.  Thus,  even if petitioner had timely submitted a pro se petition for review, he was not entitled to accept  representation by counsel and also proceed with pro se pleadings.  As petitioner has not established  that he is entitled to proceed pro se with respect to his appeal from the judgment of conviction in this ­2­  case, we direct our clerk to accept no further pro se pleadings from him in this matter.  Petition denied. ­3­ 

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.