o 28 REED V. STATE [323 Cite as 323 Ark. 28 (1996) Benny REED v. STATE of Arkansas CR 95-392 912 S.W.2d 929 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered January 8, 1996 1. ATTORNEY & CLIENT — CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — WHEN THEY MAY BE RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL — RATIONALE BEHIND RULE OF LAW. — Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal unless the issue was considered by the trial court, as on a motion for new trial; the rationale behind this rule of law is that an evidentiary hearing and finding as to the competency of appellant's counsel by the trial court better equips the appellate court on review to examine in detail the sufficiency of the representation. 2. ATTORNEY & CLIENT — APPELLANT FAILED TO RAISE ISSUE OF COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS DURING TRIAL — ISSUE NOT PRESERVED ON APPEAL. — Where the appellant did not file a motion for new trial, nor did he raise the issue of his counsel's ineffectiveness during trial, he failed to preserve below the issue of ineffective
ARK.] REED V. STATE 29 Cite as 323 Ark. 28 (1996) assistance of counsel. Appeal from Union Circuit Court; John Graves, Judge; affirmed. Vickery, Landers, & Lightfoot, P.L.L. C., by: John D. Lightfoot, for appellant. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice. Appellant, Benny Reed, appeals a judgment of the Union County Circuit Court convicting him of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to the Arkansas Department of Correction for forty years and ten years respectively. We granted his motion for rule on the clerk. Reed v. State, 320 Ark. 515, 899 S.W.2d 53 (1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2). [1] Appellant raises four points for reversal, all of which are claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial. It is well established that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal unless the issue was considered by the trial court, as on a motion for new trial. E.g., Pipkin v. State, 321 Ark. 511, 905 S.W.2d 827 (1995) (citing Sumlin v. State, 319 Ark. 312, 891 S.W.2d 375 (1995)). The rationale behind this rule of law is that an eviden-tiary hearing and finding as to the competency of appellant's counsel by the trial court better equips the appellate court on review to examine in detail the sufficiency of the representation. Kanig v. State, 321 Ark. 515, 905 S.W.2d 847 (1995). [2] Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, nor did he raise the issue of his counsel's ineffectiveness during trial. See Tisdale v. State, 311 Ark. 220, 843 S.W.2d 803 (1992). Because appellant failed to preserve below the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.
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.