Mr. Brown did not properly or ethically handle my Rule 32.1, Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Mr. Brown took 9 long dilatory months to file my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and failed to file a Reply to the Prosecutor’s false statements in the states response. In fact, Mr. Brown failed to file any reply at all. Falling well below the ethical norms of what is expected of an attorney when accepting a case that deals with a person’s most valuable asset their very “Freedom.” Mr. Brown had everything he needed to file the Petition, because he received it from my Appellate Attorney within days of his tenor on my case. I sent Mr. Brown detailed instructions of what needed to be include in the Petition within a week of Mr. Brown accepting the case. Mr. Brown tried to get me to lose some of these issues that needed to be included in my Petition by arguing with me that they were not necessary “which is false” because if you don’t use them you lose them in other petitions, and continued to delay the process by ignoring my phone calls and requesting for extensions from the Court by falsely stating to the Court that he needed a certain transcript that; 1. he already had and 2. didn't have anything to do with my Petition or with what needed to be filed. Mr. Brown finally agreed to file the Petition with what I requested because it was proper, but only after my wife called him almost every day for over a month. Mr. Brown also tried to get me to sign a petition without the issues that needed to be kept in play during the process, by sending me an incomplete Petition, because if you don’t include them in your rule 32 they will be lost forever. After the Prosecutor filed his response, Mr. Brown did not send me a copy of it until it was to late to file the mandatory reply. Mr. Brown did not file any reply to the states response at all, and everything the prosecutor stated in his response “even though it was false” was considered by the judge as if it were true, due to Mr. Browns Failure to reply to the Prosecutors Response. The Judge stated that her ruling was based in part because Mr. Brown failed to file a reply to the states response. Mr. Brown issued his final statement falsely claiming that there we no other issues to continue to the Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. Mr. Brown then took another month or so to send me the Rule 32.1, decision, and the rest of the file so I could continue to file the Rule 32.9, again delaying the process, to give me the time needed to file my Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. These are not all the problems I experienced with Mr. Brown. The fact is Mr. Brown did not work in my interest at all, and I would not recommend him to anyone.

Mr. Brown did not properly or ethically handle my Rule 32.1, Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Mr. Brown took 9 long dilatory months to file my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and failed to file a Reply to the Prosecutor’s false statements in the states response. In fact, Mr. Brown failed to file any reply at all. Falling well below the ethical norms of what is expected of an attorney when accepting a case that deals with a person’s most valuable asset their very “Freedom.” Mr. Brown had everything he needed to file the Petition, because he received it from my Appellate Attorney within days of his tenor on my case. I sent Mr. Brown detailed instructions of what needed to be include in the Petition within a week of Mr. Brown accepting the case. Mr. Brown tried to get me to lose some of these issues that needed to be included in my Petition by arguing with me that they were not necessary “which is false” because if you don’t use them you lose them in other petitions, and continued to delay the process by ignoring my phone calls and requesting for extensions from the Court by falsely stating to the Court that he needed a certain transcript that; 1. he already had and 2. didn't have anything to do with my Petition or with what needed to be filed. Mr. Brown finally agreed to file the Petition with what I requested because it was proper, but only after my wife called him almost every day for over a month. Mr. Brown also tried to get me to sign a petition without the issues that needed to be kept in play during the process, by sending me an incomplete Petition, because if you don’t include them in your rule 32 they will be lost forever. After the Prosecutor filed his response, Mr. Brown did not send me a copy of it until it was to late to file the mandatory reply. Mr. Brown did not file any reply to the states response at all, and everything the prosecutor stated in his response “even though it was false” was considered by the judge as if it were true, due to Mr. Browns Failure to reply to the Prosecutors Response. The Judge stated that her ruling was based in part because Mr. Brown failed to file a reply to the states response. Mr. Brown issued his final statement falsely claiming that there we no other issues to continue to the Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. Mr. Brown then took another month or so to send me the Rule 32.1, decision, and the rest of the file so I could continue to file the Rule 32.9, again delaying the process, to give me the time needed to file my Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. These are not all the problems I experienced with Mr. Brown. The fact is Mr. Brown did not work in my interest at all, and I would not recommend him to anyone.

Mr. Brown did not properly or ethically handle my Rule 32.1, Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Mr. Brown took 9 long dilatory months to file my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and failed to file a Reply to the Prosecutor’s false statements in the states response. In fact, Mr. Brown failed to file any reply at all. Falling well below the ethical norms of what is expected of an attorney when accepting a case that deals with a person’s most valuable asset their very “Freedom.” Mr. Brown had everything he needed to file the Petition, because he received it from my Appellate Attorney within days of his tenor on my case. I sent Mr. Brown detailed instructions of what needed to be include in the Petition within a week of Mr. Brown accepting the case. Mr. Brown tried to get me to lose some of these issues that needed to be included in my Petition by arguing with me that they were not necessary “which is false” because if you don’t use them you lose them in other petitions, and continued to delay the process by ignoring my phone calls and requesting for extensions from the Court by falsely stating to the Court that he needed a certain transcript that; 1. he already had and 2. didn't have anything to do with my Petition or with what needed to be filed. Mr. Brown finally agreed to file the Petition with what I requested because it was proper, but only after my wife called him almost every day for over a month. Mr. Brown also tried to get me to sign a petition without the issues that needed to be kept in play during the process, by sending me an incomplete Petition, because if you don’t include them in your rule 32 they will be lost forever. After the Prosecutor filed his response, Mr. Brown did not send me a copy of it until it was to late to file the mandatory reply. Mr. Brown did not file any reply to the states response at all, and everything the prosecutor stated in his response “even though it was false” was considered by the judge as if it were true, due to Mr. Browns Failure to reply to the Prosecutors Response. The Judge stated that her ruling was based in part because Mr. Brown failed to file a reply to the states response. Mr. Brown issued his final statement falsely claiming that there we no other issues to continue to the Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. Mr. Brown then took another month or so to send me the Rule 32.1, decision, and the rest of the file so I could continue to file the Rule 32.9, again delaying the process, to give me the time needed to file my Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. These are not all the problems I experienced with Mr. Brown. The fact is Mr. Brown did not work in my interest at all, and I would not recommend him to anyone.

Mr. Brown did not properly or ethically handle my Rule 32.1, Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Mr. Brown took 9 long dilatory months to file my Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and failed to file a Reply to the Prosecutor’s false statements in the states response. In fact, Mr. Brown failed to file any reply at all. Falling well below the ethical norms of what is expected of an attorney when accepting a case that deals with a person’s most valuable asset their very “Freedom.” Mr. Brown had everything he needed to file the Petition, because he received it from my Appellate Attorney within days of his tenor on my case. I sent Mr. Brown detailed instructions of what needed to be include in the Petition within a week of Mr. Brown accepting the case. Mr. Brown tried to get me to lose some of these issues that needed to be included in my Petition by arguing with me that they were not necessary “which is false” because if you don’t use them you lose them in other petitions, and continued to delay the process by ignoring my phone calls and requesting for extensions from the Court by falsely stating to the Court that he needed a certain transcript that; 1. he already had and 2. didn't have anything to do with my Petition or with what needed to be filed. Mr. Brown finally agreed to file the Petition with what I requested because it was proper, but only after my wife called him almost every day for over a month. Mr. Brown also tried to get me to sign a petition without the issues that needed to be kept in play during the process, by sending me an incomplete Petition, because if you don’t include them in your rule 32 they will be lost forever. After the Prosecutor filed his response, Mr. Brown did not send me a copy of it until it was to late to file the mandatory reply. Mr. Brown did not file any reply to the states response at all, and everything the prosecutor stated in his response “even though it was false” was considered by the judge as if it were true, due to Mr. Browns Failure to reply to the Prosecutors Response. The Judge stated that her ruling was based in part because Mr. Brown failed to file a reply to the states response. Mr. Brown issued his final statement falsely claiming that there we no other issues to continue to the Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. Mr. Brown then took another month or so to send me the Rule 32.1, decision, and the rest of the file so I could continue to file the Rule 32.9, again delaying the process, to give me the time needed to file my Rule 32.9 Petition for Review. These are not all the problems I experienced with Mr. Brown. The fact is Mr. Brown did not work in my interest at all, and I would not recommend him to anyone.