Murdock v. State

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because I believe that this case is controlled by Philyaw v. State, 288 Ark. 237, 704 S.W.2d 608 (1986). The majority attempts to distinguish Philyaw by stating that there was no indication in the record that the appellant was unable to have retained counsel in court on the day of trial, nor that she desired appointed counsel, nor that she was indigent. It is true that the record does not indicate any of those situations, but the absence of such information does not, I submit, satisfy Philyaw’s requirement that the trial judge determine…