Hollis Devin Martz v. John Felts, Chairman, Arkansas Board of Parole, 585 S.W.3d 675

Hollis Devin Martz was on supervised parole and was arrested for multiple offenses (including aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, and related charges) and tested positive for controlled substances.
His parole officer recommended revocation; at a revocation hearing a hearing officer found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martz violated parole conditions, and he was taken into custody.
Martz filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in Jefferson County Circuit Court seeking to compel the Arkansas Board of Parole to set aside the revocation, arguing procedural defects and insufficiency of the evidence.
The circuit court denied the petition, concluding mandamus will not lie to control discretionary decisions and that the parole board’s revocation was discretionary.
Martz moved to file a supplemental brief on appeal, but the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the motion as untimely (the material would have been a reply brief and was filed well after the deadline).
The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the writ, holding mandamus is inappropriate to review or control discretionary parole revocation decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of supplemental brief	Martz sought to supplement his brief after appellee’s brief to add material	State argued the material amounted to an untimely reply and was filed past the 15-day deadline	Motion to file supplemental brief denied as untimely
Availability of mandamus to challenge parole revocation	Martz argued the Board failed to follow procedure and evidence was insufficient to revoke parole	State argued parole revocation is a discretionary executive function and mandamus does not lie to control discretionary acts	Mandamus unavailable; circuit court did not abuse discretion in denying petition

State v. Vittitow, 358 Ark. 98 (2004) (explaining mandamus enforces established rights or performance of duties but will not control discretionary acts)
T.J. ex rel. Johnson v. Hargrove, 362 Ark. 649 (2005) (mandamus does not lie to control a public official’s discretionary act)
Parker v. Crow, 368 S.W.3d 902 (Ark. 2010) (issuance of mandamus is appropriate only when duty is ministerial, not discretionary)
Linell v. State, 565 S.W.3d 482 (Ark. 2019) (standard of review for denial of writ of mandamus is whether the circuit court abused its discretion)
Benson v. Kelley, 561 S.W.3d 327 (Ark. 2019) (questions of parole eligibility and revocation fall within the executive branch)