Ty-Kwah khalifa/michael Muldrow v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 109

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 13, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. 109 Digitally signed by Susan Williams SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Reason: I attest to the accuracy No. CR-21-60 and integrity of this document Date: 2023.06.22 13:51:14 -05'00' Opinion Delivered May 13, 2021

TY-KWAH KHALIFA/MICHAEL MULDROW PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PETITIONER MANDAMUS [HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT V. COURT, NO. 29CR-12-257]

PETITION DENIED. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Petitioner Ty-Kwah Khalifa, who is also known as Michael Muldrow, brings this

pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the circuit court to conduct

a hearing on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001,

codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016). Because

Khalifa fails to demonstrate entitlement to issuance of the writ, it is denied.

Khalifa pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 240 months’

imprisonment by order entered on August 5, 2013. On August 26, 2020, Khalifa filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that the State withheld certain evidence held by

the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. Khalifa does not ask for a ruling on his habeas petition

but instead asks that the circuit court be compelled to conduct a hearing on it.

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

the performance of a duty. Martz v. Felts, 2019 Ark. 297, 585 S.W.3d 675. 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. Mandamus will compel a

court to act when it should act, but it will not be used to tell the court how to decide a

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

A hearing is not required on a habeas petition—even when the petition alleges an

otherwise cognizable ground—when probable cause for the issuance of the writ is not

shown by affidavit or other evidence. Jackson v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 255, 602 S.W.3d 743.

Our statutory scheme does not mandate a hearing on a habeas petition regardless of the

allegations contained in it. Noble v. State, 2019 Ark. 284, 585 S.W.3d 671. In sum, holding

a hearing on a habeas petition is not a ministerial duty but is a discretionary decision with

the circuit court based on its analysis of the allegations and evidence presented by the

petition.

Petition denied.

Ty-Kwah Khalifa, pro se petitioner.

No response.