Raines v. State, CR

Decision Date10 December 1998
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
Citation335 Ark. 376,980 S.W.2d 269
PartiesDrew Malone RAINES, III, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. 98-945.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Drew Malone Raines, III, appearing pro se, seeks by petition for writ of mandamus to compel Pulaski County Circuit Judge John W. Langston not to take any further action during the pendency of his appeal from the trial court's order, which denied his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner further seeks to "purge" the circuit court's actions on October 14 and 15, 1998, when it held a hearing and affirmed the municipal court's judgment.

Petitioner was convicted by the Sherwood Municipal Court on April 1, 1998, of using an unofficial license plate and of driving without his driver's license and several other documents required by Arkansas law: the motor vehicle registration and proof of insurance and vehicle inspection. The conviction was appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court. On June 11, 1998, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. After a hearing on June 12, 1998, the trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and set the case for trial on July 29, 1998. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 1998, which purported to appeal from the order denying his motion to dismiss. Petitioner appeared on the trial date, July 29, 1998, and requested a continuance. The trial court granted the continuance and rescheduled the trial for October 14, 1998. The petitioner then filed the record in this court on August 3, 1998. The record of proceedings in the trial court was certified as of July 30, 1998.

Petitioner filed the petition for writ of mandamus in this court on October 26, 1998, and alleges that, notwithstanding the docketing of the appeal in this court on August 3, 1998, the trial court continued to exercise jurisdiction by proceeding with the trial on October 14, 1998, and by entering an order affirming the municipal judgment on October 15, 1998. In support of these allegations in his petition, petitioner attached thereto a copy of the trial court's docket sheet that shows a stamped entry on October 14, 1998, with the words "[l]ower court judgment affirmed. remanded for execution,"and a copy of the order entered by the trial court on October 15, 1998, whereby the appeal was dismissed and remanded to Sherwood Municipal Court.

In support of his petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ar Democrat-Gazette et al v Zimmerman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2000
    ...S.W.2d 125 (1999). A writ of mandamus is issued by this court only to compel an official or judge to take some action. Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 980 S.W.2d 269 (1998). When requesting a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the abse......
  • Arnold v. Honorable Spears et al, 00-997
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2001
    ...wholly without jurisdiction. See Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000) (citing Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 980 S.W.2d 269 (1998)). Prohibition prevents an action from occurring. See id. (citation omitted). A writ of certiorari, on the other hand, is a......
  • Ballard et al. v. the Clark Cnty. Arkansas Circuit Ct.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 2001
    ...from acting wholly without jurisdiction. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000); Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 980 S.W.2d 269 (1998); Young v. Smith, 331 Ark. 525, 964 S.W.2d 784 (1998). The purpose of the writ of prohibition is to prevent a court from e......
  • Ballard et al. v. the Clark Cnty. Arkansas Circuit Ct., 01-1251
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 2001
    ...wholly without jurisdiction. See Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000) (citing Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 980 S.W.2d 269 (1998)). Prohibition prevents an action from occurring. Id. This court has routinely held that a writ of prohibition will not lie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 18 Special and Extraordinary Proceedings
    • United States
    • Handling Appeals in Arkansas (2021 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...338 Ark. 195, 196, 992 S.W.2d 125, 126 (1999). It is issued only to compel an official or judge to take some action. Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 378, 980 S.W.2d 269, 270 (1998). The party requesting a writ of mandamus must show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the absen......
  • Chapter 17 Special and Extraordinary Proceedings
    • United States
    • Handling Appeals in Arkansas
    • Invalid date
    ...regarding the writ of mandamus • A writ of mandamus is used only to compel an official or judge to take some action. Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 378, 980 S.W.2d 269, 270 (1998). • A writ of mandamus is used to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Manila S......
  • Chapter 18 Special and Extraordinary Proceedings
    • United States
    • Handling Appeals in Arkansas (2015 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...15 v. White, 338 Ark. 195, 992 S.W.2d 125 (1999). It is issued only to compel an official or judge to take some action. Raines v. State, 335 Ark. 376, 980 S.W.2d 269 (1998). The party requesting a writ of mandamus must show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the absence of a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT