ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 22, 2001

RODNEY BUNCH

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-1360

PRO SE MOTION TO RELIEVE COUNSEL AND TO STAY APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 98-3654, HON. DAVID BOGARD, JUDGE)

MOTION DENIED

Rodney Bunch was found guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment is on appeal to this court. Appellant Bunch's court-appointed attorney, Tammy Harris, has filed the appellant's brief. Appellant has filed a pro se motion asking that Ms. Harris be relieved and that the appeal be stayed.1 He states that the trial court relieved his first attorney because the attorney said that appellant had threatened his life, and that there are irreconcilable differences between him and Harris which were manifested in a physical altercation before trial that resulted in his lacerating Harris's forehead several times. Appellant complains that the trial court declined to relieve Harris even after he had injured her and that her representation at trial was inadequate. (He also lists complaints about the conduct of the trialjudge and several other persons that he contends violated his constitutional rights in the trial court.) Appellant states that he strongly believes that Harris will retaliate against him by refusing to raise appropriate grounds on appeal. The request to stay the appeal is founded on appellant's desire for a hearing on the motion and allegations of trial error.

A defendant's right to counsel is grounded in the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and is also granted by Art. 2 Section 10 of the Arkansas Constitution. We have held, however, that the right to counsel is not the absolute right to counsel of one's choosing and may not be used to frustrate the inherent power of the court to command an orderly, efficient, and effective administration of justice. Clements v. State, 306 Ark. 596, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991); Burns v. State, 300 Ark. 469, 780 S.W.2d 23 (1989). Appellant has not demonstrated that his attorney should be replaced. The allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial are properly raised under our postconviction rule, Criminal Procedure Rule 37, if the judgment is affirmed.

Motion denied.

1 Appellant has filed the same pro se motion in the Arkansas Court of Appeals in a separate appeal pending in that court, CACR 00-1035, in which he is also represented by Ms. Harris.