Quake Howard Lewellyn v. State of Arkansas and Category Six Originals Fourteen LLC

2024 Ark. App. 479, 699 S.W.3d 814

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 9, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 479 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-23-434

QUAKE HOWARD LEWELLYN Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LAWRENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 38CR-21-136]

STATE OF ARKANSAS AND HONORABLE ROB RATTON, JUDGE CATEGORY SIX ORIGINALS FOURTEEN LLC DISMISSED APPELLEES

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Quake Howard Lewellyn appeals the Lawrence County Circuit Court order granting

Category Six Originals’ (Category 6) request for intervenor access to sealed court documents.

We dismiss the case as moot.

I. Relevant Facts

In October 2020, Lewellyn was charged with kidnapping, capital murder, and other

crimes regarding the death of Sydney Sutherland. In October 2021, Lewellyn pleaded guilty

to capital murder and rape, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On

November 2, 2021, the circuit court entered an order sealing the entire investigative file for

38CR-21-136, State of Arkansas v. Quake Howard Lewellyn “except documentary reports and

written findings.” On October 6, 2022, Category 6 requested the investigative file for 38CR-21-136,

pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The circuit court initially

denied the FOIA request, finding that the investigative file was sealed and not subject to

FOIA.

On December 7, Category 6 filed a motion for limited intervention, access to sealed

court documents, and other relief. Category 6 explained in the motion that it produced

television specials for the A&E Network, and Category 6 planned to make a special regarding

Sydney Sutherland’s murder. Category 6 stated that Sydney’s family had given its permission

to have access to the investigative file, and there is both a common-law and First Amendment

right to have access to the sealed information.

On December 29, Lewellyn responded that Category 6 had cited no relevant authority

supporting its contention that it had a right to intervene, and Category 6 was “merely a

corporation set out to gain from exploiting the facts of this case.” Moreover, Lewellyn

claimed, Category 6 was not compliant with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 24, and there

was no statute confirming any right to intervene on the basis of these circumstances.

On February 10, 2023, the circuit court granted Category 6’s motion to intervene.

On March 7, the circuit court entered an order vacating the order to seal the investigative

file and granted Category 6’s request for access to certain photographs taken during the

investigation, audio and video recordings of Lewellyn’s and others’ police interviews, GPS

data, surveillance and Ring camera footage, the autopsy report, social media data, and cell

phone data.

2 Lewellyn timely filed his notice of appeal, and this appeal followed. On appeal,

Lewellyn argues that the circuit court erred in granting Category 6’s motion to intervene

because the motion was not timely and because Category 6 did not prove a legal or justifiable

reason that it is entitled to the documents requested. Lewellyn’s appeal is moot.

II. Discussion

Category 6 explains that reversing the circuit court’s order granting intervention and

vacating the order granting Category 6 access to specific documents would have no “practical

effect” because Category 6 has already had access to the investigative files. We agree.

As a general rule, our appellate courts will not review issues that are moot. See Terry

v. White, 374 Ark. 387, 391, 288 S.W.3d 199, 202 (2008). To do so would be to render

advisory opinions, which we will not do. Id. A case is moot when any judgment rendered

would not have any practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. In other

words, a moot case presents no justiciable issue for determination by the court. Id.

The information sought in Category 6’s FOIA request was released and used for the

purpose it was intended; accordingly, there is no live controversy for this court to resolve,

and the case is moot.

Moreover, the exceptions to the mootness doctrine do not apply here. Our appellate

courts have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: matters capable of

repetition yet evading review and matters of substantial public interest likely to be litigated

in the future. See Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3, 566 S.W.3d 105,

108. An issue capable of repetition yet evading review arises when the justiciable controversy

3 will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication. See Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201,

203, 890 S.W.2d 271, 272 (1995). The other exception applies when considerations of

substantial public interest or the prevention of future litigation are present. See Duhon v.

Gravett, 302 Ark. 358, 360, 790 S.W.2d 155, 156 (1990). This court has the authority to

decide whether to settle an issue that is moot, and we do not improvidently utilize either

exception. See Protect Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3, 566 S.W.3d at 108. Category 6 asserts

in its brief that “[n]othing stopped Mr. Lewellyn from seeking a stay pending appeal of the

order granting Category 6 access to investigative files. In other words, should this type of

issue arise in the future, it would not evade review.” We agree. Future respondents to a

motion to intervene can use the available court process to attempt to prevent the

intervention, and any potential substantial public interest may be addressed at that time. We

dismiss the case as moot.

Dismissed.

GLADWIN and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Josh Q. Hurst, for appellant.

Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull, PLLC, by: John E. Tull III and Glenn Larkin, for separate

appellee Category 6 Originals Fourteen LLC.