ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
September 25, 2003

STEVEN PINDER

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-1289

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PRO SE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AND FOR COPY OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, NO. CR 2002-30]

MOTIONS MOOT

Per Curiam

Steven Pinder was found guilty of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal of the judgment has been lodged in this court. Appellant Pinder, who is represented by counsel on appeal, filed the instant motions after counsel filed the appellant's brief, asking to be permitted to file a pro se supplemental brief and requesting a copy of the transcript to prepare the supplemental brief.

It is well settled that an appellant who is represented by counsel is not entitled to file a supplemental brief, unless he demonstrates that the brief filed by counsel is clearly deficient. See Wade v. State, 288 Ark. 94, 702 S.W.2d 28 (1986). Moreover, an appellant who has accepted representation by counsel is not ordinarily entitled to represent himself and also rely on counsel to represent him; thus, the appellant who desires to file a supplemental brief has a heavy burden to overcome to demonstrate that he should be allowed to do so. See Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991).

Here, appellant's attorney has been directed to submit a substituted brief which is scheduled to be filed on October 4, 2003. As the original brief which appellant alleges to be deficient will not be considered by this court, appellant's motions are moot, and we need not consider appellant's claims that he should be allowed to file a pro se brief because the brief filed by counsel is deficient.

Motions moot.

Thornton, J., not participating.