Title: Kiara Smith v. Honorable John F. Fogleman, Circuit Judge

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07­1057 KIARA SMITH Petitioner v. HON. JOHN F. FOGLEMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE Respondent Opinion Delivered November 1, 2007 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT, CR 96­17] PETITION MOOT IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PER CURIAM On October 11, 2007, petitioner Kiara Smith filed in this court the petition for writ of mandamus which is now before us. Petitioner, who is incarcerated by virtue of a 2006 conviction for robbery, alleges that Circuit Judge John N. Fogleman has failed to act in a timely manner on a petition to correct sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16­90­111 (Supp. 2005) that he filed on May 15, 2007, and that Judge Fogleman erred when he denied a motion for transcript and motion for discovery filed in petitioner’s criminal case. He seeks a writ to compel respondent Fogleman to act on the petition for reduction of sentence and to grant the relief sought in the two motions. On October 19, 2007, respondent filed a response to the mandamus petition to which was appended a copy of the order that denied the two motions and an order entered September 20, 2007, that disposed of the petition to correct sentence. As the court has acted on the petition to correct sentence, petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus with respect to it is moot. ­2­ As to petitioner’s request for a writ to compel the court to grant the relief sought in the motion for transcript and motion for discovery, it is clear that mandamus is not the proper remedy to challenge in this court the decision on the motions. The purpose of a writ of mandamus in a civil or a criminal case is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Smith v. Fox, 358 Ark. 388, 193 S.W.3d 238 (2004). When requesting a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the reliefsought and the absence ofanyother adequate remedy. Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004). If petitioner was not satisfied with decision on the motions, his remedy was an appeal from the order, not a mandamus action in this court. A mandamus action is not a substitute for an appeal. Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988). Petition moot in part and denied in part.