Newman v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 418 ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 02-811 Opinion Delivered RICKEY D. NEWMAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent September 17, 2009 PRO SE MOTIONS TO DENY RELIEF, TO OBTAIN INFORMATION OR STATUS OF CIRCUIT COURT CASE, AND TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL, AND PRO SE MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL’S POSITION PERTAINING TO PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS MOTIONS DENIED IN PART AND MOOT IN PART. PER CURIAM Now before us are five pro se motions filed by petitioner Rickey D. Newman. Newman was convicted by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to death. Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 10, we conducted an automatic review of his conviction and found no error. Newman v. State, 353 Ark. 258, 106 S.W.3d 438 (2003). The instant motions concern the petition filed on Newman’s behalf seeking this court’s permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The motions also address a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. A petition for postconviction relief is filed pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, and Criminal Procedure Rule 37.5 sets forth procedures for persons under Cite as 2009 Ark. 418 the sentence of death. However, no Rule 37 issue is currently pending before this court, and those portions of the motions that address such a petition are therefore moot. As to other matters raised in the motions, Newman filed a pro se motion on August 20, 2009, requesting that we deny the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court and a petition under Rule 37.5. He also filed a pro se motion on August 25, 2009, and a supplemental pro se motion on August 27, 2009. In these motions, Newman adopts the position taken by the Arkansas Attorney General’s office on behalf of the respondent State of Arkansas to the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court, that is, that the petition should be denied. Newman also references a Rule 37 petition in these motions. All three motions are based upon Newman’s claim that he did not want the federal public defender to file the error coram nobis petition on his behalf. We previously ordered the matter to be briefed by the parties. The briefs have now been filed and are pending before this court. To the degree that Newman’s motions suggest that he wishes to forego further legal proceedings in this case, those requests are denied. On August 31, 2009, Newman additionally filed a pro se motion for this court’s permission to proceed without counsel in various matters. In the caption, he asks to proceed without counsel in “all” of his cases, but in the body of the motion, he specifically identifies an action under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 and actions in state court. As previously noted, no matter is currently pending in this court that concerns postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37, and that request is moot. To the extent that Newman is requesting that he be allowed to proceed pro se in the pending -2- Cite as 2009 Ark. 418 petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court, that request is denied. As Newman is represented by counsel, he is not entitled to pursue his own motions for relief and also rely on counsel to represent him. Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d 615 (2002). The only exception to this rule is where an appellant can demonstrate that counsel’s arguments are deficient. Gidron v. State, 312 Ark. 517, 850 S.W.2d 331 (1993) (per curiam). Newman has failed to make such a showing here. Also before us is Newman’s August 20, 2009, pro se motion asking this court to direct the federal public defender’s office to provide Newman with unspecified information and the status of matters pending in Crawford County Circuit Court. He claims in the motion that he has been unable to elicit the requested information from his attorney. Having undertaken to represent Newman, this court is confident that attorneys with the federal public defender’s office will continue to comply1 with Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(3), which states that a lawyer shall “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter,” and Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(4), which states that a lawyer shall “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information[.]” Newman’s motion on this issue is denied. To the extent that his motion concerns a petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 37, the motion is moot. Motions denied in part and moot in part. 1 In Newman’s motion filed on August 25, 2009, he states therein that he spoke with one of his federal public defenders on August 19, 2009, indicating that he has had the opportunity to inquire about the status of any circuit court proceedings. -3- Cite as 2009 Ark. 418 -4-

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.