Court Opinion

ID: 7824685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:04:05.974041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:49.632745
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam. James A. Duty petitions for certiorari seeking to have this court review the record of the disposition of a complaint he filed with the respondent, Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. We deny the petition. The petitioner filed a notice with this court that he wished to appeal from the disposition of a complaint he has filed with the commission. He then filed a document styled “Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Complete the Record,” and asked that copies of the commission record of the disposition of his complaint be furnished to him. Rule 12F of the commission’s rules provides that we may grant certiorari to bring before this court any action or failure to act on the part of the commission. There is no provision in the rules for appeal other than by a judge who was made a respondent before the commission. The petitioner is acting pro se. Despite the wording of the documents he had filed in this matter, we sense that he seeks review of the commission’s disposition of his complaint. The only basis upon which he could possibly obtain review is the certiorari provision of Rule 12F.  Certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous on the face of the record where there is no other adequate remedy. Sexton v. Supreme Court Comm. on Prof. Conduct, 297 Ark. 154-A, 761 S.W.2d 602 (1988); Bridges v. Arkansas Motor Coaches, 256 Ark. 1054, 511 S.W.2d 651 (1974). While it is true that the petitioner has no right of appeal from the commission’s decision, the petition makes no allegation of an error on the face of the record. Petition denied. Hays and Glaze, JJ., dissent.