534 S.W.3d 152
Ark.2018Background
- Petitioner Roderick R. Williams, pro se, filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition and related motions (trial transcript, appointment of counsel, in forma pauperis) in Desha County Circuit Court on December 29, 2011, within 60 days of this court's mandate affirming his convictions and sentences.
- Williams was convicted of capital murder, first-degree domestic battering, endangering the welfare of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentenced to life without parole plus 72 years; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- The Rule 37.1 petition and motions remained pending for several years without a ruling; Williams petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to act and alternatively asked this Court to vacate convictions, order evidentiary hearing, appoint counsel, and grant new trial.
- Respondent Judge Steven Porch, appointed to the position in January 2017, acknowledged inheriting the caseload and argued he had not yet had sufficient time to rule; he did not provide a firm timeline for disposition.
- This Court recognized that appointment of counsel and granting an evidentiary hearing under Rule 37 are discretionary, but held that a trial court has a ministerial duty to timely rule on pending pleadings.
- The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief in part, directing Judge Porch to enter rulings on the Rule 37.1 petition and related motions within 120 days; it denied Williams’s requests to vacate convictions, appoint counsel, hold an evidentiary hearing, or grant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel the trial judge to rule on Williams’s pending Rule 37.1 petition and related motions | Williams argued the long delay in ruling violated his right to prompt disposition and sought an order compelling a ruling | Judge Porch argued he inherited the caseload recently and had not yet had sufficient time; urged discretion over docket control | Mandamus appropriate to compel a timely ruling; judge ordered to dispose of the petition and motions within 120 days |
| Whether mandamus can order vacatur of convictions and sentences or grant a new trial | Williams asked this Court to vacate convictions, conduct evidentiary hearing, appoint counsel, and order new trial | Judge Porch opposed court-ordered substantive relief via mandamus and noted discretionary nature of those remedies | Denied: mandamus will not direct how the judge should decide discretionary Rule 37 matters or grant substantive relief |
| Whether appointment of counsel is mandatory in postconviction Rule 37 proceedings | Williams sought appointment of counsel to pursue his Rule 37 claims | Judge relied on precedent that appointment of counsel is discretionary | Denied as relief by mandamus; appointment remains within trial court’s discretion |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required on Rule 37 petition | Williams requested an evidentiary hearing | Judge asserted he may decide sufficiency of the record without a hearing per Rule 37.3(a) | Denied by mandamus; trial court retains discretion to grant or deny a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vittitow, 358 Ark. 98 (Ark. 2004) (describing purpose of mandamus to enforce performance of a duty)
- Eason v. Erwin, 300 Ark. 384 (Ark. 1988) (mandamus denied where trial judge provided timetable and assurances for hearing)
- Thompson v. Erwin, 310 Ark. 533 (Ark. 1992) (judge controls docket but must dispose of matters within a reasonable time)
- Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16 (Ark. 2003) (trial court may determine sufficiency of files and records without a hearing under Rule 37.3(a))
- Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115 (Ark. 2015) (appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings is discretionary)
- Parker v. Crow, 2010 Ark. 371 (Ark. 2010) (mandamus issues and limits explained)