Court Opinion

ID: 9841138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 15:04:11.777419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:39:34.512261
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 119
                     SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                          No. CV-23-98

 LARRY DAVIS                                     Opinion Delivered: September 21, 2023
                                   PETITIONER
 V.
                                                 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
                                                 MANDAMUS
 DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION                        [CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
                          RESPONDENT             09CV-21-93]

                                                 PETITION GRANTED.

                               KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

       Petitioner Larry Davis pleaded guilty to theft of property in 2019 in the Pulaski

County Circuit Court, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty months’

imprisonment.1 Davis subsequently sought postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule

of Criminal Procedure 37.1, which the trial court denied, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals

affirmed. Davis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 210. On November 17, 2021, Davis filed in the

county of his incarceration a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code

Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Now before this court is Davis’s pro se petition

for writ of mandamus. The petition is granted. The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to

enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Evans v. State, 2022

Ark. 31, 638 S.W.3d 847. 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

       1
           The charges of commercial burglary and breaking or entering were nolle prossed.
compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Id. Mandamus will compel a court to act but

will not be used to tell a court how to decide a judicial question. Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark.

1, 534 S.W.3d 152.

       In his petition for writ of mandamus, Davis contends that the Honorable Quincy

Ross, circuit judge, has failed to timely act on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After

an initial review of the petition, this court entered a per curiam order directing the State to

respond to the petition. The State responded, noting that the circuit court has not yet ruled

on the habeas petition and that “no action will be taken by the circuit court by the deadline

for filing of this response. No explanation was provided to respondent.” That is, the State

was unable to determine a reason for the lengthy delay.

       Mandamus will not lie to control or review matters of discretion but is warranted to

enforce an established right. Rodgers v. State, 2020 Ark. 272, 606 S.W.3d 72. Here,

mandamus does lie because a court has a ministerial duty to timely act on pleadings filed.

Id. Davis’s habeas petition has been pending since 2021, and no action has been taken, and

the State’s response offers no explanation for the extended delay. Accordingly, Davis’s

petition for the writ of mandamus is granted, and Judge Ross is directed to issue an order

acting on the habeas petition within thirty days of the date of this opinion.

       Petition granted.

       Larry Davis, pro se petitioner.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walker K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.

                                               2