Daniel Sanders v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 08-704 Opinion Delivered November 20, 2008 v. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL AND PRO SE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2006-2975, HON. JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee MOTIONS GRANTED. DANIEL SANDERS Appellant PER CURIAM In 2007, appellant Daniel Sanders was convicted by a jury of multiple criminal offenses and sentenced as a habitual criminal to an aggregate term of 540 months’ incarceration. Appellant was represented at trial by his retained attorney, John Marshall May.1 No appeal was taken. Appellant timely filed in this court a pro se motion for belated appeal pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(e) seeking to proceed with the direct appeal of the criminal convictions. We granted the motion, concluding that Mr. May remained attorney-of-record and obligated to represent appellant on appeal and that appellant had established that he was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.2 Sanders v. State, CR 08-704 (Ark. Oct. 9, 2008) (per curiam). Now before us is Mr. May’s motion to be relieved as counsel and appellant’s pro se motion seeking appointment 1 The judgment incorrectly reflected that appellant was represented by attorney John W. May II. 2 On March 21, 2008, Mr. May was cautioned by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct for his failure to properly represent appellant. The Committee concluded that Mr. May knew that petitioner wished to appeal his convictions and that he was obligated to perfect the appeal but failed to do so. of other counsel. The motions are granted. We appoint attorney Leah Lanford to represent appellant. Ms. Lanford is directed to file a petition for writ of certiorari within thirty days to call up any additional portion of the record that may be necessary for the appeal. A briefing schedule will be set when the complete record is lodged. Motions granted. -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.