Charles G. Rodgers v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. 272, 606 S.W.3d 72

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: September 17, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. 272 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-68

CHARLES G. RODGERS Opinion Delivered September 17, 2020 PETITIONER PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF V. MANDAMUS [PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, STATE OF ARKANSAS NO. 54CR-02-171] RESPONDENT PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

Petitioner Charles G. Rodgers filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which

he contends that the Honorable E. Dion Wilson, circuit judge, has failed to act on a

petition for writ of mandamus filed on July 19, 2019, and an amended petition for writ of

mandamus filed on September 3, 2019. The Attorney General’s Office filed a response on

Judge Wilson’s behalf on April 6, 2020. Because the circuit court has not acted on the

original petitions, we grant Rodgers’s request for rulings on the petitions but deny

Rodgers’s request that the mandamus petitions filed below be granted “outright” and a

hearing ordered.

The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right or to enforce

the performance of a duty. Jones v. Ross, 2019 Ark. 283. A writ of mandamus is issued by

this court to compel an official or a judge to take some action. Id. A writ of mandamus will not lie to control or review matters of discretion and is used to enforce an established right.

Id. Issuance of the writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be compelled is

ministerial and not discretionary. Id. Mandamus will compel a judge to act when he or she

should act, but it will not be used to tell a judge how to decide a judicial question. Williams

v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152.

Rodgers contends that he filed the mandamus petitions below to request

authorization to obtain records from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory pursuant to

Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-312. Because the circuit court had not ruled on

the underlying mandamus petition, Rodgers filed the mandamus action presently before

this court. In his claim for relief, Rodgers asks this court to grant the petition “and issue a

mandamus to the Phillips County prosecutor Todd Murray directing him to grant the

Arkansas State Crime Lab authorization or permission to release all evidence, reports,

testing results, photos, and evidence submission logs to the petitioner, Rodgers.” In its

response the Attorney General’s Office states that the petition should be denied because

Rodgers requests this court to grant a particular ruling, and mandamus does not lie to

compel such rulings.

Mandamus will not lie to instruct a circuit court how to decide the issue. The circuit

court has not informed this court of any action that has been taken regarding the July 19

mandamus petition and the September 3 amended mandamus petition or whether any

action is to be taken. A court does have a ministerial duty to timely act on pleadings filed,

regardless of the merit of those pleadings. Williams, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152; see also

2 Wesley v. Wright, 2019 Ark. 10 (All courts have a duty to act timely.). Because the

respondent has indicated no inclination to dispose of the matter, Rodgers’s request for an

order disposing of this matter is granted. However, Rodgers’s request that the underlying

mandamus petitions be granted “outright” and that he be granted a hearing is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Wilson is directed to issue an order disposing of the mandamus

petition and the amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order.

Petition granted in part and denied in part.

Charles G. Rodgers, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.