| |
| | [No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09) |
 | | If petitioner had been proceeding pro se throughout the Rule 37 proceeding, or if the record reflected that the attorney who filed the original Rule 37 petition had been relieved as counsel, we would not hesitate to find that petitioner had failed to exercise diligence in pursuing the appeal. |
 | | He was, however, not proceeding pro se orginally, and his attorney, Tona M. DeMers, was obligated to obtain a ruling on the Rule 37 petition and remain as petitioner's attorney until relieved by the trial court or this court. |
 | | Even though petitioner Sanders filed an pro se amended petition and a pro se notice of appeal, his attorney had not been relieved and was thus obligated to continue representing him, which included lodging the Rule 37 record here. |
| courts.state.ar.us /opinions/1997a/970707/cr97-679.txt (591 words) |
|