Brown v. Gibson
2012 Ark. 285
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Drew County information charged Brown with three felony drug-related counts on August 5, 2010.
- Between October 2011 and February 2012 Brown filed four pro se pleadings challenging the court’s jurisdiction and seeking records for appeal.
- One October 17, 2011 pleading challenged the court’s jurisdiction; another asserted citizenship and civil liberties; October 24, 2011 referenced a jurisdiction challenge; the last sought an order for appellate recording.
- On April 30, 2012 Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a written order addressing the pleadings’ merits.
- The court denied the petition for lack of record showing the writ was warranted or a duty to issue a merits-based written order.
- The opinion discusses whether any oral disposition occurred, Brown’s pro se status, potential counsel status, and the applicability of Monts v. Lessenberry to require written orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel a written order addressing the pleadings' merits. | Brown | Gibson | Not warranted; no clear ministerial duty shown |
| Whether Brown had pro se status entitling a written merits order or whether counsel status precluded it. | Brown likely pro se | Record unclear on status; may have counsel | Petitioner failed to prove pro se status; not entitled to merits-based written order |
| Whether the trial court had a ministerial duty to act on pro se pleadings despite merit. | Court must respond to pro se pleadings timely | Court could defer or strike; merit not controlling | Court had a duty to act on pleadings; however lacked written merits-order requirement |
| Whether an oral disposition could suffice for interlocutory review of jurisdictional issues. | Oral disposition may be adequate for review | Written order may be necessary for interlocutory review | Oral disposition alone generally not sufficient for interlocutory review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Norris, 2012 Ark. 86 (Ark. 2012) (mandamus factors and ministerial duty)
- Nelson v. Glover, 2012 Ark. 207 (Ark. 2012) (court must act on pleadings; timely disposition)
- Higgins v. Proctor, 2009 Ark. 496 (Ark. 2009) (oral order may be insufficient to dispose of matter)
- Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202 (Ark. 1991) (duty to respond to pro se motions; record must reflect disposition)
- Shook v. Huffman, 345 Ark. 43 (Ark. 2001) (burden on applicant seeking writ; merits not assumed)
- Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 70 (Ark. 2012) (recording burden on petitioner; need record)
- C.H. v. State, 2010 Ark. 279 (Ark. 2010) (interlocutory review for jurisdictional challenges)
- State v. D.S., 2011 Ark. 45 (Ark. 2011) (interlocutory review for jurisdictional questions)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation; limits and duties)
- Monts (additional citation context), 806 S.W.2d 379 (Ark. 1991) (discipline of pro se motions when counsel involved)
- United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (limits on use of self-representation rights)