Stacy Tubbs v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 06-945
Opinion Delivered NOVEMBER 2, 2006
STACY TUBBS,
APPELLANT;
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE;
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Stacy Tubbs has filed a motion to substitute privately retained counsel, James
Bennett, in place of his court-appointed attorney, Robert Jeffrey, to represent him in his
appeal pending before this court.
In the present case, the motion to substitute counsel was filed by Bennett. Jeffrey has
heretofore not filed a motion to withdraw, as required by Rule 16 of the Arkansas Rules of
Appellate Procedure–Criminal, stating reasons for the attempted withdrawal. Moreover, he
has continued to act, both prior to and subsequent to the present motion, on Appellant’s
behalf. Thus, we deny the motion without prejudice to it being refiled.
Furthermore, we take this opportunity to note that this motion falls within an area of
concern addressed by the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 66 Ark. App. 324, 992 S.W.2d
140 (1999), and Brewer v. State, 64 Ark. App. 372, 984 S.W.2d 65 (1998). Both of these cases
discussed a perceived abuse in the process of obtaining appeal transcripts on the part of
indigent defendants who were represented by court-appointed counsel and were, therefore,
permitted to obtain trial transcripts at the expense of the State and, thereafter, employed
privately retained counsel to represent them on appeal. In the present case, just as in the
Brewer cases, we are concerned with Appellant’s recent ability to obtain private counsel after
his use of a court-appointed attorney and State funds to obtain his transcript for appeal.
Denied without prejudice.
-2-
CR 06-945
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.
