Kenneth Allan Britt v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­1224  Opinion Delivered  February 7, 2008  PRO SE PETITION FOR REVIEW AND  PRO SE MOTION FOR  APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND  EXTENSION OF TIME [CIRCUIT  COURT OF LONOKE COUNTY, CR  2005­28, HON. LANCE L. HANSHAW,  JUDGE]  KENNETH ALLAN BRITT  Petitioner  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Respondent  PETITION DISMISSED; MOTION  DENIED.  PER CURIAM  A  jury  found  petitioner  Kenneth  Allan  Britt  guilty  of  manufacturing  methamphetamine,  possessing  drug  paraphernalia  with  intent  to  manufacture  methamphetamine,  and  fleeing,  and  sentenced him to an aggregate term of 240 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of  Correction.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  Britt v. State, CACR 07­103  (Ark. App. Nov. 7, 2007).  Petitioner has filed in this court a pro se petition in which he now seeks  review of the decision by the court of appeals.  We do not reach the merits of appellant’s petition, as he filed the petition proceeding pro se.  The record shows that appellant was represented at trial and on appeal by counsel.  We do not allow  a petitioner to substitute his judgment, concerning whether and how to request a petition for review,  for that  of his attorney.  Brewer v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d  ___  (Nov.  15, 2007) (per  curiam).  Accordingly, we dismiss the petition without further consideration. After the State filed a response to the petition citing Brewer, petitioner filed a motion in which  he  requested  that  this  court  relieve  counsel,  appoint  new  counsel,  and  grant  additional  time  for  counsel to pursue a petition for review, or, alternatively, that we order his attorney to file a petition  for review.  Petitioner provides no basis for relieving counsel, other than his desire to proceed with  a petition for review and his attorney’s decision not to pursue one.  Nor does he state any basis for  this court to grant a petition for review, had his attorney elected to file such a petition.  We  will neither  relieve  counsel nor  compel counsel to  file  a  pleading  simply  because  an  appellant in a criminal case demands it.   The right to counsel does not provide the right to counsel  who substitutes the judgment of the accused for his or her professional judgment.  Hadley v. State,  322 Ark. 472, 910 S.W.2d 675 (1995).  With the exception of certain fundamental decisions, it is the  attorney’s duty to take professional responsibility for the conduct of the case, after consulting with  his client.  Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991) (per curiam).  Petitioner has  stated no facts that would indicate counsel should be relieved or that counsel’s decision not to file  a petition for review was anything other than a reasonable exercise of professional judgment.  Petition dismissed; motion denied. ­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.