Title: Karon D. Trotter, Jr. v. Honorable Don Glover, Circuit Judge

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 07­975 KARON D. TROTTER, JR. Petitioner v. HON. DON GLOVER, CIRCUIT JUDGE Respondent Opinion Delivered November 8, 2007 PRO SE PETITION AND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA [CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW COUNTY, CV 2005­56] PETITION, AMENDED PETITION, AND MOTIONS MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2005, the State of Arkansas filed in the Circuit Court of Drew County a civil complaint seeking forfeiture of certain monies pursuant to a judgment obtained against petitioner Karon D. Trotter, Jr. On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed a motion seeking an order from the court returning any funds remaining after the judgment was satisfied. On September 20, 2007, petitioner Trotter filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus in this court, contending that the Honorable Don Glover had failed to act on the motion in a timely manner. He asks that a writ be issued to compel the court to act on the motion and further asks this court to direct Judge Glover to grant the relief requested in the motion. On October 1, 2007, the court entered an order holding that any remaining money in the bank accounts used to satisfy the judgment was payable to petitioner or his authorized designee. On October 12, 2007, petitioner filed an amendment to the mandamus petition, taking issue with the court’s decision on the motion and ­2­ challenging the circuit court’s jurisdiction in the matter. As the circuit court has entered a ruling on petitioner’s motion, the mandamus petition is moot. With respect to petitioner’s request that this court direct the circuit court to make a particular ruling, even ifthe ruling had not already been made by the court, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to take a particular action on the motion. As to the claims raised in the amendment to the mandamus petition, if petitioner wished to challenge the order, his remedy was an appeal from the order, not an amendment to the mandamus action in this court. Mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988). Finally, on October 26, 2007, petitioner filed in this court two motions. One motion seeks issuance of a subpoena to obtain certain physical evidence that he alleges would prove his claim that the circuit court erred in its October 1, 2007 order. The other motion asks this court for “appellate oversight” and a determination that the circuit court erred in the order. The motions are clearly an attempt to substitute the instant mandamus action for an appealfromthe order. As such, the motions are also moot. Petition, amended petition and motions moot.