Cite as 2016 Ark. 297

No. CR-16-367

DON AIRSMAN, JR.

PETITIONER

V.

HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT, 

JUDGE

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered July 21, 2016

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS 

[HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

NO. 29CR-12-164] 

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

In 2013, petitioner Don Airsman, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder and 

received a life sentence with an enhancement of 180 months’ imprisonment. This court 

affirmed the judgment. Airsman v. State, 2014 Ark. 500, 451 S.W.3d 565. In 2015, Airsman 

filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 

37.1 (2015), which the trial court denied. This court affirmed the denial of postconviction 

relief. Airsman v. State, 2015 Ark. 409, 473 S.W.3d 549 (per curiam). Following that

decision, Airsman filed a second petition for postconviction relief in the trial court, which 

the trial court denied and dismissed. 

Airsman now brings this pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he appears 

to request this court to direct the Honorable Randy Wright, Circuit Judge, to file and sign 

documents concerning an appeal of the order denying and dismissing his second Rule 37.1 

petition. He requests that Judge Wright be directed to “explain” to this court so that he is 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 297

2 

“not penalized on time restraints” and may pursue an appeal of the order denying the Rule 

37.1 petition. We deny the mandamus petition. 

An applicant for an extraordinary writ such as mandamus carries the burden to 

demonstrate that the relief he seeks is merited. Lonoke Cty. v. City of Lonoke, 2013 Ark. 

465, 430 S.W.3d 669. The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right 

or to enforce the performance of a duty by a public official. Veverka v. Gibson, 2013 Ark. 

59. When requesting a writ, a petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the relief 

sought and the absence of any other remedy. Id.

Airsman has not clearly established a duty that Judge Wright failed to perform. To 

the extent that he would have this court direct Judge Wright to file any documents, that 

duty is the circuit clerk’s and not Judge Wright’s. See Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per 

curiam). An action to compel the circuit clerk to perform a duty is properly pursued in 

circuit court. Grant v. Reynolds, 2014 Ark. 100 (per curiam). To the extent that Airsman 

is contending that Judge Wright has failed to rule on a pleading or petition he filed, Airsman 

has not identified the document. Judge Wright ruled on the only pleading contained in the 

record before this court—the second Rule 37.1 petition.1

 Airsman appears to contend that 

Judge Wright has failed to act on a pleading Airsman filed in connection with an appeal of 

the denial of postconviction relief, but, if so, that pleading is not contained in the record

before this court.2

 Airsman has the burden to bring up a record sufficient for this court to 

 

1

The record contains the sentencing order, the November 12, 2015 Rule 37.1 

petition, the order denying that petition, and a notice of appeal as to an earlier order. 

2

Judge Wright’s response to the mandamus petition includes as attachments a notice 

of appeal for the order in the record before us and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 297

3 

grant relief. Spearman v. State, 2013 Ark. 196, 427 S.W.3d 593. As to Airsman’s claim that 

Judge Wright has an obligation to provide this court with an explanation for any delay or

for Airsman’s failure to meet time obligations regarding an appeal, we are unaware of any 

duty imposed by the rules of procedure in that regard at this juncture, and Airsman points 

to none. 

Petition denied.

 

filed by Airsman. Judge Wright contends that, even if these were the documents that 

Airsman wished to have him rule on, he has now entered an order on the petition granting 

Airsman status as a pauper on appeal.