Henry Simon Vidal v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 07-259
Opinion Delivered
HENRY SIMON VIDAL
Appellant
April 17, 2008
v.
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
CRAWFORD COUNTY, CR 2005-42,
HON. MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Now before us is appellants’s pro se motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal
that this court handed down on February 7, 2008. Vidal v. State, CR 07-259 (Ark. Feb. 7, 2008) (per
curiam).
Appellant is represented by counsel in the instant appeal but has filed the motion for
reconsideration before us as a pro se litigant. Having accepted representation by counsel, appellant
is not also entitled to pursue his own motions for relief. Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d
615 (2002); Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (per curiam). As we do not
allow an appellant to compete with his attorney to be heard, Franklin, supra, we need not consider
appellant’s pro se motion for reconsideration.
Motion denied.
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.
