# Wilson v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 24, 1991 · 306 Ark. 179

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7824841

## Case

- **Full name:** Herbert WILSON a/k/a Herbert Jones v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 24, 1991
- **Citations:** 306 Ark. 179; 810 S.W.2d 337; 1991 Ark. LEXIS 341
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Dudley, Glaze
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7824841

## Opinion text

Per Curiam. The appellant is appealing the denial by the trial court of a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The appellant’s brief filed by the attorney appointed to represent the appellant is flagrantly deficient in that there is no abstract of the information, judgment and commitment order, the Rule 37 petition, or the court’s order denying the Rule 37 petition. Counsel now seeks permission to supplement the abstract. The state argues that it would be unfair to permit the appellant to remedy the deficiencies with a supplemental abstract after the state’s brief has already been filed.
Although the appeal is from an order denying post-conviction relief and the right to effective assistance of counsel under the sixth amendment does not extend to collateral attacks on a judgment, we will not penalize the appellant by dismissing the appeal because his attorney prepared a deficient brief. If appellant had been proceeding pro se and had submitted a deficient abstract, we would not hesitate to affirm pursuant to our Rule 9 since a litigant who elects to proceed pro se is required to conform to the rules of procedure. Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452 , 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986). Where the error was made by appointed counsel, however, we will permit the abstract to be supplemented.
A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
Motion granted.
Dudley and Brown, JJ., concur. Glaze, J., dissents.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7824841. Public record. Not legal advice.