Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
ALIM SHAKIR HAKIM V. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Case Number: 2018 Ark. App. 579
Judge: WAYMOND M. BROWN
Court: ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: One brief only.
Defendant's Attorney: David L. Dunagin
Alim Shakir Hakim was convicted by a Sebastian County jury of one count of
delivery of cocaine and sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five yearsí imprisonment
with an additional five yearsí suspended sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California,1 and
Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Hakimís counsel has
filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that this appeal is wholly without merit. The
motion is accompanied by an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, which
addresses all objections and motions decided adversely to Hakim, and a brief in which
counsel purportedly explains why there is nothing in the record that would support an
appeal. The clerk of this court provided Hakim with a copy of his counselís brief and
notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. We
affirm and grant counselís motion to withdraw.2
On March 27, 2017, Hakim was charged by criminal information with delivery of
cocaine and as a habitual offender. At trial, Hakimís counsel made the following statement
Jury trials in criminal cases usually have what we call two phases. A guilt or [innocence] phase and then the sentencing phase. This is going to be easy. We are going to have a sentencing phase because my client made this delivery of drugs, all right. The State will prove he did this, okay. So, basically you are going to be here for you to decide what the punishment is because we consider you to be the conscience of the community.
The State presented testimony of the confidential informant, the narcotics investigator
who conducted the controlled buy, as well as a video of the transaction. Hakim did not
present a defense and during closing arguments, his counsel stated in pertinent part:
I donít know if you will see another case similar to this one, but basically I have rolled over, my client did this, okay. We ask that you keep an open mind and that open mind to continue through because of the next phase which is the sentencing; that is what we are here for. I am not going to insult your intelligence by arguing that you should find him not guilty, all right. So, like I said, we are just here for the next phase. Thank you.
The jury returned with a guilty verdict. Hakim was subsequently sentenced to twenty-five
yearsí imprisonment with an additional five years suspended. A timely notice of appeal was
Generally, an attorneyís statement is not evidence; however, concessions made by an
attorney can bind his client.3 In this case, Hakimís counselís statements amounted to a
judicial confession because there was an admission of guilt as to the delivery of cocaine by
Hakim.4 As such, the statements bound Hakim. Thus, the jury was only tasked with
deciding a proper sentence. Although counsel requested a light sentence of three to ten
years, the jury returned the twenty-five-year sentence with an additional five years
suspended instead. The trial court ran this sentence consecutive to sentences Hakim had
received in other cases; however, Hakimís counsel never made a request that the sentence
be run concurrent to the other sentences.
Counsel contends that he has thoroughly examined the record and found no error
that would support an appeal. As required by Rule 4-3(k), the reasons that the adverse
rulings provide no meritorious grounds for appeal are discussed in the brief. Based on our
review of the record and the brief presented, we conclude that there has been compliance
with Rule 4-3(k), there are no nonfrivolous issues that support an appeal in this case, and
this appeal has no merit.
Outcome: Therefore, we affirm Hakimís conviction and grant counselís