ARK.] PROVANCE V. STATE 169 Cite as 313 Ark. 169 (1993) Charles PROVANCE, Scotty Hancock, and Chad Eveland v. STATE of Arkansas CR 93-242 852 S.W.2d 324 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 10, 1993 APPEAL & ERROR — ATTORNEY ADMITTED ERROR — MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL GRANTED. — Where counsel for appellants filed a motion for a belated appeal and acknowledged that the failure to file a Notice of Appeal was not the fault of the petitioners but of defense counsel, the motion was granted and a copy sent to the Committee on Professional Conduct. Motion for Belated Appeal granted. Appellants, pro se. No response.
170 PROVANCE V. STATE [313 Cite as 313 Ark. 169 (1993) PER CURIAM. These petitioners, Charles Provance, Chad Eveland and Scotty Hancock, were charged and convicted in the Circuit Court of Randolph County of the crime of rape. They were represented by Mr. Cecil Kildow. The judgment of conviction was entered on October 21, 1992. No notice of appeal was filed. On March 10, 1993, petitioners moved pro se for a belated appeal, alleging that they informed Cecil Kildow of their desire to appeal and that Mr. Kildow declared his intent to appeal in their behalf from the judgment, that the failure to appeal was purely the fault of their attorney. Petitioners further allege that Cecil Kildow has an impermissible conflict of interest in representing all three petitioners and request that new and separate counsel be appointed for them. On March 22, 1993, a motion for a belated appeal for the petitioners was filed by Mr. Cecil Kildow, acknowledging that the failure to file Notice of Appeal was not the fault of the petitioners but of defense counsel. The motion also requests that petitioners, who are free on bond, be allowed to remain at liberty while a belated appeal is pending. The motion filed by Mr. Kildow makes no mention of a conflict in his collective representation of the petitioners. [1] We grant the petition for a belated appeal and direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See per curiam dated February 5, 1979, In re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964. We take no action on the bond, leaving that issue to the trial court. Nor do we address, at this point, petitioners allegation that Mr. Kildow cannot represent them on appeal due to a conflict. Their allegation is wholly conclusory and counsel himself makes no such allegation.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.