Charles G. Rodgers v. State of Arkansas, 606 S.W.3d 72

Petitioner Charles G. Rodgers (pro se) filed a mandamus petition (July 19, 2019) and an amended petition (Sept. 3, 2019) seeking authorization to obtain Arkansas State Crime Lab records under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-312.
Rodgers alleged the Phillips County Circuit Court (Judge E. Dion Wilson) had failed to rule on those petitions; he asked this court to compel action and to direct the county prosecutor to permit release of lab evidence and reports.
The Arkansas Attorney General filed a response for Judge Wilson, arguing mandamus cannot be used to compel a particular substantive ruling and that this court should deny Rodgers’s requested relief.
The court reviewed mandamus principles: it enforces established rights and compels ministerial duties but will not control judicial discretion or tell a judge how to decide a case.
The Supreme Court granted Rodgers’s request that the circuit court be ordered to dispose of the pending mandamus petitions, but denied Rodgers’s request that the underlying petitions be granted outright or that a hearing be ordered.
The circuit judge was directed to issue an order disposing of both the original and amended mandamus petitions within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may be used to compel the circuit court to act on pending pleadings	Rodgers: Judge has a duty to act; mandamus should compel a ruling on his petitions	AG: Court should not micromanage judicial decisionmaking; remedies inappropriate	Court: Mandamus may compel a judge to act; ordered judge to dispose of petitions within 30 days
Whether mandamus may be used to grant the substantive relief sought (authorize release of lab records / direct prosecutor)	Rodgers: Requests that this court grant the petitions outright and direct release of evidence	AG: Mandamus will not tell a judge how to decide or grant a particular substantive ruling	Court: Denied request to grant the underlying petitions outright and denied ordering a hearing; mandamus will not instruct how to decide

Jones v. Ross, 2019 Ark. 283 (mandamus enforces established rights and will not control discretionary judicial matters)
Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1 (mandamus may compel a judge to act but not to decide a judicial question; courts have a duty to act timely)
Wesley v. Wright, 2019 Ark. 10 (all courts have a duty to act in a timely manner)