Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-201 (2026)
Access to files
✓ current as of May 2026
- In the case of a defendant who has been convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death, the defendant's prior trial counsel shall make available to the defendant's state post-conviction counsel the complete files of the defendant's trial counsel, and the defendant's prior counsel on direct appeal shall make available to the defendant's state post-conviction counsel the complete files of the defendant's appellate counsel.
- The defendant's post-conviction counsel may inspect and photocopy the files, but the defendant's prior trial and appellate counsel shall maintain custody of their respective files for at least five (5) years following completion of the direct review process in state court, except as to the material which is admitted into evidence in any trial proceedings.
History. Acts 1997, No. 925, § 5.
Publisher's Notes. By per curiam order dated June 23, 1997, the Supreme Court provided, in part:
“[Arkansas Criminal Rule of Procedure] Rule 37.5 shall supersede Sections 5 and 6 of Act 925 (Title 16, Chapter 91, Section 201 and Section 202) except for the last paragraph of subsection 5(c) (§ 16-91-202(c)), which provided for education programs by the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, and all of subsection 5(f) (§ 16-91-202(f)), which provides for the funding of the fees and expenses awarded under the rule through the Arkansas Public Defender Commission.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Echols v. State, 42 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2001).
Echols v. State, 42 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2001). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Robbins v. State, 114 S.W.3d 217 (Ark. 2003). “5 was adopted by this court and evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to 206 (Supp.1999), and expressly recognizes this policy in favor of thorough state-court review.”
Lee v. State, 238 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. 2006). “Act 925 is now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Engram v. State, 200 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. 2004). “By invoking the exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine, the federal district court adhered to its longstanding rule of giving deference to the states, but it also invoked the spirit of Congress's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Arkansas Effective…”
Jackson v. State, 37 S.W.3d 595 (Ark. 2001). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997 (Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Hill v. State, 215 S.W.3d 589 (Ark. 2005). “Act 925 is now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-201 to 206 (Supp.2005).”
Dansby v. State, 65 S.W.3d 448 (Ark. 2002). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Roberts v. State, 2016 Ark. 118 (Ark. 2016). “§§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp. 1999), where the General Assembly expressly noted that the intent of the Act is to comply with federal law by instituting a comprehensive state-court review.”
Wooten v. State, 1 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. 1999). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Porter v. State, 2 S.W.3d 73 (Ark. 1999). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Nance v. State, 4 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. 1999). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 through 206 (Supp.”
Porter v. State, 964 S.W.2d 184 (Ark. 1998). “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.