2017 Ark. 235
Ark.2017Background
- James Griffin filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis in Craighead County Circuit Court on August 16, 2016, and then sought a writ of mandamus from the Arkansas Supreme Court claiming the circuit judge had not acted timely.
- Griffin named Judge Tonya Alexander (who presides over the Sixth Division) as the respondent, but the underlying case was in the Third Division.
- Judge Brent Davis, the Third Division judge who took Griffin’s guilty plea, filed a response as substituted respondent and noted he had denied Griffin’s coram nobis petition by an April 28, 2017 order.
- Because Judge Davis acted and Griffin received the relief he sought (a ruling), the mandamus petition no longer presented a live controversy.
- The opinion notes a scrivener’s error: a sentencing order signed by Judge Hill incorrectly listed the Sixth Division despite the case being in the Third Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit judge failed to act timely on coram nobis, justifying mandamus | Griffin: Judge Alexander did not act timely on his coram nobis petition | Judge Davis: The Third Division judge (Davis) ruled on the petition; Griffin received relief; Judge Alexander was not the proper respondent | Mandamus is moot because substituted respondent acted and Griffin received the relief he sought |
| Whether the court should decide a moot petition for writ of mandamus | Griffin sought review despite the subsequent ruling | Respondent: Case is moot; Arkansas courts do not issue advisory opinions | Court refused to review because the matter is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Thomas-Barnes, 2015 Ark. 426 (Ark. 2015) (Arkansas Supreme Court will not render advisory opinions; mootness doctrine)
- Lott v. Langley, 2013 Ark. 247 (Ark. 2013) (post-event change can render requested relief unavailable and moot the petition)
- Barnett v. Howard, 363 Ark. 150 (2005) (petition for writ of mandamus is moot if the county court has acted)
- Foster v. Hill, 372 Ark. 263 (2008) (a judge from a different division may act in absence of the judge handling the case)