Woodruff Thomas Sparacio v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR07-1025
WOODRUFF THOMAS SPARACIO,
APPELLANT,
VS.
Opinion Delivered February 28, 2008
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT AS
COUNSEL; PRO SE MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
REMANDED
RECORD.
TO
SETTLE
THE
PER CURIAM
Counsel for Appellant, Dana Reece, filed a motion for appointment as counsel on
January 25, 2008. For the reasons explained below, we remand to settle the record.
The trial court relieved trial counsel on June 6, 2007, and appointed Thurman Ragar,
who filed the notice of appeal in this case. It is apparent that Appellant retained Dana Reece
on or before June 6, 2007. Reece then filed a motion to set aside the order appointing Ragar.
On October 3, 2007, Reece filed a motion for rule on clerk, and on October 5, 2007, Ragar
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On November 1, 2007, we denied Reece’s motion,
finding that the trial court was without jurisdiction to relieve Ragar. Ragar next filed a
motion for rule on clerk as well as a motion to withdraw as counsel, which we granted. In
a per curiam opinion dated January 10, 2008, we stated, “According to the record and motions
filed by Ragar and Reece, Reece was retained by Sparacio to represent him on appeal.”
Sparacio v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Jan. 10, 2008). We directed Reece to file
an entry of appearance, and we suggested in a footnote that if Appellant is now indigent, he
should file a motion for appointment of counsel and a current affidavit of indigency. Both
are before us now.
However, in the January 25, 2008, motion for appointment as counsel, Reece states
in paragraph one “that Appellant has retained Dana Reece ... to represent him on appeal”
(emphasis added). In paragraph two, Reece seeks to be appointed. Because the issue of
whether Reece has been retained is unclear, we remand to the trial court to settle the record
on this issue.
Remanded to settle the record.
-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.