Joiner v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-1485
Opinion Delivered
May 7, 2009
v.
PRO SE MOTION TO COMPEL
ATTORNEY TO ADHERE TO RULES
OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
[CIRCUIT COURT OF COLUMBIA
COUNTY, CR 2006-211, HON. LARRY
CHANDLER, JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
MOTION DENIED.
SHEQUITA L. JOINER
Appellant
PER CURIAM
In 2007, a jury found appellant Shequita L. Joiner guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of
property and sentenced her to an aggregate term of 480 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court
of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Joiner v. State, CACR 08-151 (Ark. App. Jun. 18, 2008).
Appellant filed through counsel a petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 37.1 that was denied. Counsel lodged in this court an appeal of that order on appellant’s
behalf. Appellant, acting pro se, filed the instant motion seeking to compel her attorney to adhere
to the rules of professional conduct, complaining that her attorney had not communicated adequately
with her or kept her informed of progress in the matter, that her attorney demonstrated a lack of
candor in her communications, and that her attorney had requested two extensions of time in order
to file the brief.
Counsel for appellant, Ms. Dana A. Reece, has timely filed appellant’s brief. In her motion,
appellant does not identify the specific actions as to this appeal that she would have this court impose
upon counsel, only requesting that we impose an order for compliance with the rules of conduct
generally. Appellant does not demonstrate that she has experienced or may suffer any prejudice to
her appeal from counsel’s actions to date or the alleged unprofessional conduct. Whether or not
appellant may have genuine cause for dissatisfaction with counsel’s behavior, she has not established
a basis for this court to grant her motion. Appellant’s motion is therefore denied.
We note that complaints concerning attorney conduct may be directed to our Office of
Professional Conduct. That office is charged with investigation of such complaints and processing
of complaints for resolution through initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the Committee on
Professional Conduct or otherwise. P. Reg. Prof’l Conduct 5(C).
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.
