Hollis Devin Martz v. John Felts, Chairman, Arkansas Board of Parole

2019 Ark. 297

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: October 24, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2019 Ark. 297 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-19-223

HOLLIS DEVIN MARTZ Opinion Delivered October 24, 2019

APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE V. JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; MOTION TO FILE JOHN FELTS, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF BOARD OF PAROLE [NO. 35CV-17-838] APPELLEE HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE

MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AFFIRMED.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice

Hollis Devin Martz appeals from the denial of his pro se petition for writ of

mandamus asking the circuit court to compel the Arkansas Board of Parole to set aside the

revocation of his parole. Martz has also filed a motion to supplement his brief. The circuit

court denied the petition on the basis that mandamus does not lie to correct matters that

are discretionary. We deny Martz’s motion to supplement his brief and affirm the circuit

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus.

Before we consider Martz’s appeal, we first dispose of his motion to file a

supplemental brief. Martz’s brief was filed on April 1, 2019. The appellee’s brief was filed

on April 29, 2019. Martz did not tender his supplemental brief until August 27, 2019. While we allow supplementation of briefs to correct deficiencies in an addendum, see

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7(c)(1)(B)(3), the material that Martz wanted to add

would, at best, be permissible in a reply brief. Per our rules, Martz’s reply brief was due

fifteen days after the State filed its brief, in this case, fifteen days from April 29, 2019.

Because Martz did not timely file his supplemental brief, we decline to consider it. We

now take up his main brief.

Martz was on supervised parole when he was arrested and charged with the

following offenses: first-degree criminal mischief, possession of a firearm, aggravated assault

on a family member, second-degree assault, and terroristic threatening. Martz also tested

positive for controlled substances. Consequently, Martz’s parole officer recommended that

his parole be revoked. A revocation hearing was held in which the hearing officer found

by a preponderance of the evidence that Martz had violated the conditions of his parole,

and Martz was taken into custody by the Arkansas Department of Correction. In his

petition for mandamus and in his arguments on appeal, Martz complains that the Arkansas

Board of Parole failed to follow proper procedure in revoking his parole, and he also

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation.

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

the performance of a duty. State v. Vittitow, 358 Ark. 98, 186 S.W.3d 237 (2004).

However, a writ of mandamus will not lie to control or review matters of discretion. Id.

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

ministerial and not discretionary. Parker v. Crow, 2010 Ark. 371, 368 S.W.3d 902. The

2 standard of review on a denial of a writ of mandamus is whether the circuit court abused

its discretion. Linell v. State, 2019 Ark. 25, 565 S.W.3d 482. A circuit court abuses its

discretion when it makes a decision that is arbitrary and capricious. Id.

Questions of parole eligibility fall within the domain of the executive branch. Benson

v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 333, 561 S.W.3d 327. The General Assembly has vested in the parole

board and its officers the discretion to revoke parole at any time if it is found by a

preponderance of the evidence that the parolee has failed to comply with the conditions of

his or her parole. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-705(a)(6) (Repl. 2016). Mandamus does not lie

to control a public official’s discretionary act. T.J. ex rel. Johnson v. Hargrove, 362 Ark. 649,

210 S.W.3d 79 (2005). Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by

denying Martz’s petition for the writ.

Motion to file supplemental brief denied; denial of petition for writ of mandamus

affirmed.

Hollis Devin Martz, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vincent P. France, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.