Joe Jones v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 07-149
Opinion Delivered
JOE JONES
Petitioner
March 1, 2007
PRO SE PETITION FOR REVIEW
[CACR 06-673] [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2005-4059,
HON. JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE]
v.
PETITION DENIED.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Joe Jones was found guilty by a jury of commercial burglary and misdemeanor
theft of property and sentenced as a habitual offender to 180 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas
Court of Appeals affirmed. Jones v. State, CACR 06-673 (Ark. App. January 31, 2007).
Now before us is petitioner’s pro se petition for review, asking that this court review the brief
prepared by his attorney on appeal and the opinion issued by the court of appeals. He states that he
intends to submit a pro se brief in support of the petition at a later date.
We first note that petitioner was represented by counsel in the appeal to the court of appeals.
He has not demonstrated that there is some good cause to permit him to enjoy representation by
counsel and to also file pro se pleadings. It is well settled that having accepted representation by
counsel, an appellant is not entitled to pursue his own motions for relief and also rely on counsel to
represent him. See Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991) (per curiam). With
respect to petitioner’s statement that he intends to file a pro se brief later, he has not shown that he
is entitled to submit a pro se petition for review and thus has not established that he is entitled to
submit a pro se brief.
Moreover, even if this court were to consider the pro se petition for review, there is no
ground stated in it pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(c) to grant a review. The rule provides that
review will not be granted without a showing by the petitioner that the decision of the court of
appeals is in conflict with a prior holding of a published opinion of either this court or the court of
appeals or that the court otherwise erred with respect to one of the grounds enumerated in Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 1-2(b). The mere request that this court review the briefs filed in the court of appeals and the
opinion of that court does not demonstrate a basis for relief under the rule.
Petition denied.
-2-
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.
