ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 071023
ANDREW TREMAINE BREWER
STATE OF ARKANSAS
November 15, 2007
PRO SE MOTION TO PROCEED PRO
SE AND PETITION FOR REVIEW
[CACR 061403] [CIRCUIT COURT OF
COLUMBIA COUNTY, CR 2005205,
CR 200616, HON. LARRY W.
MOTION DENIED; PETITION MOOT.
A jury found petitioner Andrew Tremaine Brewer guilty of possession of a controlled
substance (Darvocet) and residential burglary and sentenced him as a habitual offender to an
aggregate term of 840 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment. Brewer v. State, CACR 061403 (Ark. App. Sept. 19, 2007). Petitioner filed a motion
to proceed pro se, and a pro se petition for review under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 12(b) was filed. Those
matters are now before us.
In his motion, petitioner requests that we permit him to proceed pro se and that this court
review the decision by the court of appeals through his pro se petition. Yet, counsel was appointed
to represent petitioner at trial and on appeal. An appellant is not entitled to accept appointment of
counsel to represent him, and also proceed pro se. Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d 615
(2002). Moreover, this court will not permit an appellant to compete with his attorney to be heard
in an appeal. Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (per curiam); see also Monts
v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991) (per curiam). We will not allow a petitioner
to substitute his judgment concerning how and whether to request review for that of his attorney.
Petitioner here contends that he is unable to adequatelycommunicatewith counsel in the short
time required to petition for review and also contends that counsel raised patently frivolous claims
on appealwhile not pursuing what petitioner perceives asmore viable claims. Appellant’s allegations
do not constitute good cause to relieve counsel or to per