592 S.W.3d 656
Ark.2020Background
- James W. Wyatt filed to be a candidate for Sixth Judicial District, Division 14, Pulaski County circuit judge for the March 3, 2020 election.
- Tyray Carr petitioned for a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, alleging Wyatt was ineligible because certified Pulaski County District Court docket entries showed guilty pleas to multiple hot-check violations (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302), which Carr argued constitute "infamous" or "public trust" crimes under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 9 and Ark. Code Ann. §§ 21-8-301 et seq.
- The district-court clerks’ certified docket printouts (and later electronic records) included notations of guilty pleas and payments; the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) had no record of Wyatt; Wyatt denied any convictions and disputed the sufficiency and provenance of the later electronic notations.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wyatt had pleaded guilty to hot-check violations and was therefore ineligible to run; it ordered the Secretary of State and Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners not to certify or place Wyatt on the ballot.
- Carr moved for attorney’s fees under A.C.A. § 21-8-303(b); the circuit court did not award fees or require an appeal bond. Wyatt appealed; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted certiorari to complete the record and affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carr) | Defendant's Argument (Wyatt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden of proof for a mandamus challenge to candidate eligibility | Carr: preponderance of the evidence suffices; the standing standard ("clear and certain right") is distinct | Wyatt: petitioner must meet a higher "clear and certain" standard | Court: preponderance of the evidence is the proper evidentiary standard; "clear and certain" describes standing, not the burden of proof |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Wyatt (identity) pleaded guilty/was convicted of hot-check offenses | Carr: certified district-court records and electronic entries show guilty pleas/payments establishing conviction | Wyatt: contemporaneous dockets show bond forfeitures; later (2005) electronic notations are second‑hand, ACIC has no record, and he denied guilt | Court: did not clearly err — preponderance supports finding Wyatt pleaded guilty and was convicted; affirmed removal from ballot |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under A.C.A. § 21-8-303(b) | Carr: statute awards fees upon a "successful outcome" of citizen enforcement action; he prevailed and thus is entitled to fees | Wyatt: subsection (b)(1) requires evidence that the prosecuting attorney failed/refused to act before fees may be awarded under (b)(2) | Court: affirmed denial of fees — no evidence was introduced that the prosecuting attorney failed or refused to enforce the subchapter, so the court did not abuse its discretion |
| Requirement of a supersedeas (appeal) bond when appealing removal from ballot | Carr: Rule 8(c) requires a bond when an appellant seeks a stay on appeal | Wyatt: he sought a stay in circuit court but it was not granted and he did not request a stay from the appellate court | Court: no abuse — no stay was in place and no appellate supersedeas was sought, so circuit court did not err in declining to require a bond |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Fox, 358 Ark. 388 (2004) (describing purpose and requirements for writ of mandamus)
- Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20 (2004) (mandamus requires clear and certain right and absence of adequate remedy)
- Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. v. Fluker, 371 Ark. 574 (2007) (appellate review of mandamus governed by clearly-erroneous standard)
- Worsham v. Day, 2019 Ark. 160 (2019) (general rule limiting attorney’s-fee awards to statutory authorization)
- Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227 (1990) (Attorney’s-fee principles and statutory entitlement)
- Ellis v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 2010 Ark. 196 (2010) (trial-court discretion reviewed for abuse on attorney-fee rulings)