Dennis Burnette v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
01-287

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JULY 9, 2001

DENNIS BURNETTE

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-287

PRO SE MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR APPOINTMENT OF OTHER COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER COUNTY, NO. CR 99-448-1, HON. JOE GRIFFIN, JUDGE]

MOTION GRANTED

On May 15, 2000, judgment was entered reflecting that Dennis Burnette had been found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment. Burnette was represented at trial by his retained attorney, Don Gillaspie. Mr. Gillaspie filed a timely notice of appeal but did not perfect the appeal. On March 7, 2001, Burnette filed a pro se motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment. As the notice of appeal was timely filed, we treat the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the appeal rather than a motion for belated appeal and granted it. Burnette v. State, CR 01-287 (Ark. May 10, 2001).

We said when the motion was granted that Mr. Gillaspie remained attorney-of-record and responsible for the appeal. He was directed to file within thirty days a petition for writ of certiorari to bring up the remainder of the record, or that portion of it necessary for the appeal.

The petition for writ of certiorari was due for filing no later than Monday, June 11, 2001. The

petition was not filed by that date, and appellant Burnette now asks by pro se motion that Gillaspie be compelled to submit the petition or, in the alternative, that he be appointed other counsel to represent him in this appeal.

The motion is granted. Mr. Gillaspie is directed to submit with seven days of the date of this opinion the petition for writ of certiorari with a motion to file it belatedly.

A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.

Motion granted.

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.