This case comes before us as a petition tice. prohibition, or in the alternative, writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus. We are asked to decide whether a federal mental evaluation is sufficient to satisfy Arkansas’ statutory scheme governing such evaluations, found in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305 (Supp. 2003). Procedurally, the State also questions whether the petitioner Tyree Smith has standing to obtain any one of the extraordinary writs he seeks from our court in deciding if the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of § 5-2-305. The State submits that Smith’s remedy is an appeal. Because we ultimately hold Smith does have standing to seek and obtain a writ of certiorari, we will first consider the facts leading to Smith’s filing of this original action and then address the core issue requiring this court’s interpretation and application of § 5-2-305 in this case.
On October 5, 2002, Smith was arrested by Little Rock police and charged with aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The charges stemmed from Smith’s involvemеnt in an aggravated robbery at a Bank of America branch in Little Rock. He was also subsequently indicted on federal bank armed robbery charges arising from the same crime. The federal district court ordered Smith to undergo a mental-health еvaluation to determine both his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the offense. That court sent Smith to the federal prison system’s Federal Medical Center in Texas, where he was evaluated and deemed both comрetent to stand trial and sane at the time of the robbery. The federal mental evaluation on Smith was given to the federal district judge on June 26, 2003. Subsequently, however, the federal authorities asked the federal district court to dismiss the federal charges against Smith; the federal court granted the dismissal on July 14, 2003.
On July 28, 2003, Smith appeared in Pulaski County Circuit Court for plea and arraignment on the State’s aggravated robbery and theft charges and was appointed counsel. On August 8, 2003, Smith pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and requested a mental examination pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305(b) (Supp. 2003). The circuit court took Smith’s motion under advisement in order to consider whether the June 26, 2003, federal psychiatric exam complied with the state’s requirements under § 5-2-305.
On August 20, 2003, the State tendered the federal psychiatric report to Smith’s counsel and the trial judge. At a hearing on September 2, 2003, the State argued the federal report met all the requirements of § 5-2-305; Smith disagreed and objected tо the trial court’s adopting the report. The trial court ruled in the State’s favor and found Smith fit to proceed to trial. On January 13, 2004, the trial judge denied Smith’s request for reconsideration. Smith then sought a continuance because he was unable to obtain the full documentation of the federal mental health evaluation from federal authorities. Smith’s request was also denied by the state court, even though the federal district court, by a December 30, 2003, order, found it was without jurisdiction to comрel the Federal Bureau of Prisons to produce records for use in the state court proceeding. After denying Smith’s motion for continuance, the trial court proceeded to set the trial date for January 22, 2004. Smith responded by petitioning our court for either an extraordinary writ of prohibition, certiorari, or mandamus. We granted the stay and requested briefs on the two issues raised by the parties.
As noted above, we will first address whether the trial court erred when it deemed the federal mental evaluation sufficient to satisfy Arkansas’ mandatory statutory scheme governing state mental evaluations found under § 5-2-305. When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, the basic rule is to give effect to the intention of the legislature, making use of common sense, and assuming that when the legislature uses a word that has a fixed and commonly accepted meaning, the word at issue has been used in its fixed and commonly accepted sense. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Richard’s Honda Yamaha,
When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory constructiоn. A statute is ambiguous only where it is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, аnd this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used.
Id. at 21-22,
Here, the relevant statute, § 5-2-305, provides in pertinent part the following:
(a) Whenever a defendant charged in circuit court:
(1) Files notice that he intends to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect, or there is reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the cause; or
(2) Files notice that he will put in issue his fitness to proceed, or there is reason to doubt his fitness to proceed, the court, subject to the provisions of §§ 5-2-304 and 5-2-311, shall immediately suspend all further proсeedings in the prosecution ...
(b) Upon suspension of further proceedings in the prosecution, the court shall enter an order:
(1) Directing that the defendant undergo examination and observation by one or more qualified psychiatrists at a local regional mental health center or clinic; or
(2) Appointing at least one (1) qualified psychiatrist to make an examination and report on the mental condition of the defendant; or
(3) Directing the Director of the Arkansas State Hospital to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant; or
(4) Committing the defendant to the Arkansas State Hospital or other suitable facility for the purpose of the examination for a periоd not exceeding thirty (30) days, or such longer period as the court determines to be necessary for the purpose.
(Emphasis added).
Plain language of § 5-2-305 (a) dictates that, when a defendant announces his intention to rely on the defense of mental diseаse or defect, or where he places his fitness to proceed in issue, the court “shall immediately suspend all further proceedings in the prosecution.” Camargo v. State,
The State argues that § 5-2-305 requires only substantial compliance with its provisions. In support of its argument, the State cites tо Ball v. State,
Having determined the trial court erred in failing to follow the mandatory dictates of § 5-2-305, we now turn to the State’s argument that Smith requested the wrong remedies. First, we' note that the trial court’s order, ruling that the federal mental report met the requirements of § 5-2-305, is not a final order from which Smith could appeal. For a judgment, decree, or order to be appealable, it must dismiss parties from court, discharge them from the action, or cоnclude their rights to the subject matter in the controversy. See Ford Motor Company v. Harper,
We do, however, agree with the State that a writ of prohibition is inappropriate in the present situation, because such a writ lies only when a trial court is wholly without jurisdiction. See Conner v. Simes,
However, the State is wrong in arguing Smith is not entitled to a writ of certiorari in this case. This court has specifically stated that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary writ, which will be granted only when there is a lack of jurisdiction, an act in excess of jurisdiction on the face of the record, or when the procеedings are erroneous on the face of the record. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Collier,
While this court has recognized that certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to use to reverse а trial court’s discretionary authority, see Arkansas Dept. of Human Services v. Collier, supra, certiorari is appropriate when a trial court exercises discretionary authority when no such authority exists. For example, in Collier, supra, this court concluded that Judge Collier exceeded her statutory authority by ordering the placement of a fetus in the custody of Department of Human Services and requiring that department to render prenatal care. Id', at 523,
Accordingly, certiorari is granted. The trial court is ordered to strictly comply with the language in § 5-2-305 that mandates suspension of the proceeding against Smith and directs a state mental examination.