Ricky L. Scott v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr05-477

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-477

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

RICKY L. SCOTT

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

Opinion Delivered May 19, 2005

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR PROHIBITION [CIRCUIT COURT OF CROSS COUNTY, CR 96-61, HON. L.T. SIMES, JUDGE]

PETITION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PER CURIAM

In 1998, Ricky L. Scott was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Scott v. State, 337 Ark. 320, 989 S.W.2d 891 (1999).

On October 7, 2004, Scott filed in the trial court a petition to vacate the judgment pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. The act, codified as Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-201, et seq., amended Arkansas's state habeas corpus statute to provide that a writ could issue to any person "who has alleged actual innocence of the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted....in accordance with §16-112-201 et seq." Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-103(a)(1). Petitions filed pursuant to Act 1780 are properly filed and heard in the trial court.

In the course of the proceeding, which is now pending in circuit court, a public defender was appointed to represent petitioner Scott. The Arkansas Public Defender Commission subsequently filed a motion asking that counsel be relieved on the ground that public defenders are not required to represent persons in postconviction proceedings which are civil in nature.

The court granted the motion and relieved the attorney. Petitioner has filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari or prohibition seeking to have this court overturn the order relieving counsel.

The petition is denied without prejudice to petitioner's raising the issue of whether he was entitled to appointment of counsel in any appeal to this court from an adverse final order on the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Petition denied without prejudice.

Imber, J., not participating.

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.