ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 21, 2001

LEONEL BAUTISTA

a/k/a Leonel Bautista Mendoza

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-497

MOTION TO PROCEED PRO SE ON APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, NO. CR 98-950 A, HON. SAMUEL TURNER, JUDGE]

MOTION GRANTED

Leonel Bautista, who is also known as Leonel Bautista Mendoza, was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Mendoza v. State, CACR 99-1315 (Ark. App. August 30, 2000).

Bautista subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied, and Bautista's attorney Davis Loftin perfected an appeal from the order to this court. On June 7, 2001, we denied a motion filed by Loftin asking to be relieved as counsel. On June 12, 2001, Bautista filed the instant pro se motion asking to be allowed to proceed pro se on appeal on the ground that Loftin has not represented him adequately with respect to the Rule 37 proceeding.

Postconviction matters are considered civil in nature with respect to the right to counsel,

and there is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in civil matters. See Virgin v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986). As there is no absolute right to counsel and appellant Bautista has elected to forego representation by counsel, the motion is granted. Davis Loftin is relieved as counsel. Our clerk is directed to establish a new briefing schedule for the appeal.

Motion granted.