ARK ] 237 STATE of Arkansas v: Rickey Dale NEWMAN CR 03-1257 205 S,W3c1795 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opimon delivered March 24. 2005 APPEAL & ERROR - NO RECORD UPON WHICH TO RULE - Where the federal public defender filed a writ of habeas corpus on appellee's behalf, the trial court found appellee to be competent to make decisions regarding his case, the appellee, in open court, fired the federal public defender, and the trial court ruled from the bench. dismissing any pending matters, and finding that the federal public defender did not represent appellee for any state proceedings, the appellate court was unable to rule on appellee's motion to dissolve the sta y of execution, because there was nothing before the appellate court to indicate that the trial court entered a written order denying the habeas petition filed on appellee's behalf, the trial court was instructed to enter a written order consistent with its ruling from the bench within thirty days Motion to Dissolve Stay of Execution; motion held in abeyance. Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Clayton K. Hodges, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellant. Bruce Eddy, Federal Public Defender, for appellee ER C UPJA_M. Appellant Rickey Dale Newman moves this p court to dissolve its temporary stay of his execution, The State has filed a response, stating that Newman's motion should be granted as all matters pendmg in the circuit court have been resolved. Bruce Eddy, a federal public defender, has also filed a response to Newman's motion, arguing that it should be denied as it is premature. On February 3, 2005, the circuit court held an inquiry hearing after the federal public defenders filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on Newman's behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found Newman to be competent to make decisions regarding his case_ Newman then, in open court, fired the federal public defenders attempting to represent him in circuit court Thereafter, the circuit court, rnling from the bench.
238 [361 dismissed any pending matters, finding that the federal public defenders did not represent Newman for any state proceedings. [1] At this time, we are unable to rule on Newman's motion to dissolve the stay of execution, because there is nothing before us to indicate that the trial court entered a written order denying the habeas petition filed on Newman's behalf We therefore instruct the trial court to enter a written order consistent with its ruling from the bench at the February 3, 2005, hearing within thirty days from this order. Once that order has been entered, we will consider the merits of Newman's motion to dissolve the temporary stay of execution.
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.