ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

February 12, 2004

KEITH A. KING

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 02-645

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME [CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FORT SMITH DISTRICT, CR 2000-104, CR 2000-105, CR 2000-106, CR 2000-107, CR 2000-108, CR 2000-109]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

Keith A. King was convicted of six counts of burglary. The court of appeals affirmed. King v. State, 75 Ark. App. 405, 58 S.W.3d 875 (2001). King subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. The petition was denied, and the order is on appeal to this court. Appellant King, who is represented by counsel on appeal, seeks by pro se motion an extension of brief time to allow his attorney time to add an abstract of a particular hearing to the brief.

The motion is denied. Even in the direct appeal of a judgment wherein an appellant is entitled as a matter of right to representation by counsel, an appellant is not entitled to accept appointment of counsel while also proceeding pro se in some manner. See Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991). Although an appellant is not entitled as a matter of right to representation by counsel in a postconviction appeal, see Pennsylvania v. Finley, 482 U.S. 551

(1987), counsel has been appointed for the appellant and he has accepted that representation. Appellant has not demonstrated that he should be permitted to accept appointment of counsel in this appeal and also file pro se motions. If counsel for appellant requires an extension of time to file the brief in this appeal, appellant's counsel should make the request.

Motion denied.