Thornton v. Jones, CR-14-1091
| Decision Date | 12 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-14-1091,CR-14-1091 |
| Citation | 2015 Ark. 109 |
| Parties | JUSTIN THORNTON PETITIONER v. HON. BERLIN C. JONES, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
[LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 40CR-11-47]
PETITION DENIED.
In 2013, petitioner Justin Thornton was convicted of capital murder, misdemeanor unauthorized use of a vehicle, possession of firearms by certain persons, and abuse of a corpse. The judgment imposed sentences of life imprisonment without parole on the murder charge, twelve months' imprisonment for the charge of misdemeanor unauthorized use of a vehicle, 240 months' imprisonment on the firearms charge, and 240 months' imprisonment on the charge of abuse of a corpse, with 120 months' enhancement on the life sentence. The abuse-of-a-corpse sentence was designated to run consecutively to the murder and firearm sentences. On appeal, petitioner only challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the capital-murder charge, and this court reversed and dismissed. Thornton v. State, 2014 Ark. 157, 433 S.W.3d 216.
Petitioner has now filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus in which he seeks to have this court direct the circuit judge, the Honorable Berlin C. Jones, to enter a new or amended judgment reflecting the dismissal of the capital-murder charge by this court. In his response to the petition, Judge Jones asserts that he did not fail to do an act that he was orderedto do and, interpreting petitioner's request for relief as a request for correction of the records of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"), that he is not the party responsible for correcting those records.
The primary function of the writ of mandamus is to require an inferior court or tribunal to act when it has improperly failed or declined to do so, and the writ is not applied to control the discretion of a trial court or tribunal or to correct an erroneous exercise of discretion. Friar v. Erwin, 2014 Ark. 487, 450 S.W.3d 666 (citing State ex rel. Purcell v. Nelson, 246 Ark. 210, 438 S.W.2d 33 (1969)). The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Cuatepotzo v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 489 (per curiam). A writ of mandamus is issued by this court only to compel an official or a judge to take some action, and when requesting a writ, a petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the absence of any other remedy. Id. In this case, petitioner has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. State
...petitioner's conviction for capital murder; there was no remand requiring any action by the trial court." Thornton v. Jones, 2015 Ark. 109, at 2, 2015 WL 1198668 (per curiam).Thus, we hold that, because the conviction was reversed and dismissed, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction t......
-
Thornton v. State
...Thornton II, 2015 Ark.438, at 12, 475 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Baker, J., dissenting.). Therefore, as in Thornton II and Thornton v. Jones, 2015 Ark. 109 (per curiam) (Thornton III), Thornton's return to this court today and the majority affirming the circuit court's denial of Thornton's petition t......
-
Russell v. Pope
...applied to control the discretion of a trial court or tribunal or to correct an erroneous exercise of discretion. Thornton v. Jones, 2015 Ark. 109, 2015 WL 1198668 (per curiam). The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Id.......