Geatches v. State, 2016 Ark. 452

Michael Lee Geatches pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault on May 11, 2015, and received a 144‑month sentence.
On March 9, 2016, Geatches filed an untimely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition; the circuit court denied it as untimely on March 15, 2016.
Geatches filed two pro se motions in this Court (May 12 and May 20, 2016) requesting copies of his files from former counsel (David Dunagin; David Moore and Dale Arnold), alleging repeated unfulfilled requests.
He invoked Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 19 (newly effective rule governing requests for appellate materials), Ark. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(d) (surrender of client property), and Travis v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.
Rule 19 requires counsel to file a response within 20 days after being served; the counsels here were served but did not file responses.
The Court directed Dunagin, Moore, and Arnold to file responses within 20 days, explaining distinctions between Rule 19 relief (motion to this Court) and Rule 1.16(d) disciplinary/ethics processes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel must respond to a Rule 19 motion served in this Court	Geatches: counsel failed to provide files and thus must respond per Rule 19(b)	Counsel: (no responses filed; no arguments presented)	Court: Rule 19(b) makes a response mandatory; ordered counsel to file responses within 20 days
Whether Rule 1.16(d) requires surrender of client file irrespective of need	Geatches: counsel violated duty under Rule 1.16(d) by not surrendering papers	Counsel: (no responses)	Court: Obligation to surrender client papers exists independent of client’s need; ethics complaints go to Committee on Professional Conduct
Whether petitioner may obtain copies at public expense if counsel refuses	Geatches: requests copies at public expense citing Rule 19	State/Rule: Convicted offender must demonstrate compelling need to obtain photocopies at public expense under Rule 19	Court: If counsel won’t provide documents, petitioner may request copies at public expense but must show compelling need; indigency alone does not require public photocopying
Proper procedural avenue for failure-to-surrender claims	Geatches: cited Rule 19 and 1.16(d) interchangeably	Defense/Rules: Rule 19 motions are to this Court; Rule 1.16(d) violations are handled by Committee on Professional Conduct	Court: Distinguished the two remedies; Rule 19 is not a disciplinary action; Rule 1.16(d) claims go to the Committee;

Travis v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, 306 S.W.3d 3 (Ark. 2009) (sanctioning attorney who failed to surrender client documents; endorses end‑product approach to client files)
Khabir v. State, 439 S.W.3d 679 (Ark. 2014) (illustrative of past requests for appellate materials and need for procedures)
Moore v. State, 921 S.W.2d 606 (Ark. 1996) (indigency does not entitle a prisoner to public photocopying; costs of copy remain on requester)