Virgin v. Lockhart

Full title: Allan W. VIRGIN v. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Jan 21, 1986

288 Ark. 92 (Ark. 1986)

702 S.W.2d 9

Opinion

No. 85-283

Opinion delivered January 21, 1986

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — RIGHT OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO COUNSEL AT TRIAL BUT NOT IN POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDING. — In criminal cases the accused has a constitutional right to counsel at trial; however, there is no corresponding right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding. 2. MANDAMUS — PETITION FOR WRIT CHALLENGING COMPUTATION OF PAROLE ELIGIBILITY IS CIVIL ACTION — NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO PERFECT APPEAL IF PETITION IS DENIED. — Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the circuit court nor the supreme court is obligated to provide an attorney to perfect an appeal if the petition is denied. 3. ATTORNEY CLIENT — CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUPREME COURT WILL APPOINT ATTORNEY ON APPEAL OF DENIAL OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS. — In those cases where the appellant is able to make a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot proceed without counsel, the supreme court will appoint an attorney on appeal.

Pro se Motion for Appointment of Counsel; motion denied.

Appellant, pro se.

Steve Clark, Atty Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant who is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Department to reassess his parole eligibility status. The circuit court denied the petition and the record has now been lodged on appeal. We denied appellant's first motion for appointment of counsel in this appeal because he stated no grounds. He has filed a motion to reconsider, contending that he has a right to counsel.

[1, 2] In criminal cases the accused has a constitutional right to counsel at trial. There is no corresponding right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding, Dyer v. State, 258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975), or in a civil action. See Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971); see also Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F. Supp. 1083 (W. D. Mo. 1978). Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the circuit court nor this Court is obligated to provide an attorney to perfect an appeal if the petition is denied.

In those cases where the appellant is able to make a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot proceed without counsel, however, we will appoint an attorney on appeal. Appellant here has not established that the circumstances of his case require appointment of counsel.

Motion denied.

PURTLE, J., not participating.