Rogers v. Knight, 2017 Ark. 267

Harold Eugene Rogers, convicted of rape in 1973 (life) and a second rape in 1980 (10 years consecutive); resentenced to 90 years after habeas relief based on Graham v. Florida.
Rogers filed (May 31, 2016) a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus asserting ADC miscalculated his parole eligibility and that Bosnick v. Lockhart requires use of the parole statute in effect at his original 1973 sentencing.
Rogers alleged ADC was treating his aggregate term as requiring one-half served before eligibility (per the 1980 statute) rather than the one-third rule applicable at his 1973 sentencing.
The State responded that Rogers already was parole-eligible and had received a parole hearing on May 5, 2016, submitting an Inmate Record Summary showing the hearing.
The circuit court dismissed Rogers’s petition with prejudice for lack of a justiciable controversy; the appellate majority treated the dismissal as summary judgment because the court considered exhibits outside the pleadings and affirmed.
Two justices dissented, arguing the pleadings and earlier ADC communications raised a live factual dispute about whether ADC correctly calculated parole eligibility under Bosnick and that the court erred by dismissing without resolving that dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a justiciable controversy exists over parole-eligibility calculation	Rogers: ADC miscalculated eligibility; seeks declaratory relief and mandamus to apply 1973 statute per Bosnick	State: Rogers was parole-eligible and had a parole hearing, so no live controversy	Court: No justiciable controversy; affirmed dismissal (treated as summary judgment)
Whether a writ of mandamus should compel ADC to recalculate eligibility under Bosnick	Rogers: Bosnick requires using original-sentence statute for eligibility; mandamus appropriate	State: No relief needed because eligibility and hearing already occurred	Court: Denied mandamus; petitioner failed to show a present, contestable right needing enforcement
Whether dismissal should be treated as summary judgment because exhibits were considered	Rogers: (implied) record disputes required factual resolution	State: Exhibits show hearing and eligibility, supporting dismissal	Court: Treated dismissal as summary judgment and reviewed de novo; affirmed
Mootness / practical effect of judgment	Rogers: A mistaken calculation could still affect rights; not moot	State: Hearing rendered claim nonjusticiable/moot	Court: Agreed with State that judgment would have no practical effect; claim nonjusticiable

Bosnick v. Lockhart, 283 Ark. 533, 677 S.W.2d 292 (1984) (holding ADC may not apply a later parole statute retroactively where it alters parole eligibility; mandamus may compel correct calculation)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits certain sentences for juvenile offenders; grounds for Rogers's resentencing)
Neely v. McCastlain, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424 (2009) (mootness principle: a case is moot when any judgment would have no practical legal effect on the controversy)