LEE V. STATE 172 Cite as 366 Ark. 172 (2006) [366 Ledell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas CR 99-1116 233 S.W3d 674 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered April 13, 2006 MOTIONS - MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE - MOTION HELD IN ABEYANCE. - Pursuant to Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5 and must be appointed by the supreme court; where appellant's counsel had failed to request the court to appoint her to represent the appellant in the proceedings, the supreme court was unable to address the merits of appellant's motion to recall the mandate affirming the trial court's denial of postconviction relief.
LEE V. STATE ARK.] Cite as 366 Ark. 172 (2006) 173 Motion to Recall Mandate; held in abeyance. Cauley, Bowman, Carney, & Williams, PLLC, by: Deborah Sall-ings; and Public Interest Litigation Clinic, Kansas City, Missouri, by: Kent E. Gipson and William C. Odle, for appellant. Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee. p ER CURIAM. [1] Appellant Ledell Lee moves this court to recall its mandate affirming the trial court's denial of post- conviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. See Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702, 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001). At this time, however, we are unable to address the merits of Appellant's motion, as his counsel, Deborah Sallings, has failed to request this court to appoint her to represent Appellant in the instant proceedings. Pursuant to this court's decision in Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Rule 37.5 and must be appointed by this court. Accordingly, Ms. Sallings has fifteen days from the issuance of this per curiam to comply with the requirements of Rule 37.5 and Hill.
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.