Wiggins v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 12 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 299 Ark. 180,771 S.W.2d 759 |
| Parties | Keith WIGGINS, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. 89-76. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Keith Wiggins, pro se.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
The appellant Keith O. Wiggins was found guilty by a jury of burglary and attempted theft of property in 1986. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of fifteen and eight years. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Wiggins v. State, CACR 86-240, 1987 WL 11747 (June 3, 1987). He next filed in this court a petition to proceed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37, which was denied. Wiggins v. State, CR 88-67, 1988 WL 72490 (July 5, 1988). Appellant then filed the following pleadings in circuit court: (1) a petition to correct and reduce sentence (filed November 2, 1988); (2) a petition for writ of error coram nobis (filed November 22, 1988); (3) a petition for rehearing (filed February 9, 1989); and (4) a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment (filed March 17, 1989). In each of the petitions filed in circuit court, appellant sought to have his sentences for burglary and attempted theft of property ordered served consecutively to a sentence imposed in another case. All the petitions were denied, and on April 7, 1989, he filed a notice of appeal from the order which denied the petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment. 1
The record has now been lodged in the appeal of the order denying the petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment, and appellant has filed a motion asking to be provided with a copy of the transcript on file with this court. The motion is denied and the appeal dismissed because it is clear that there is no merit to the appeal.
In the petition the appellant sought to have the Arkansas Department of Correction recalculate his parole eligibility date. Such a petition, which is civil in nature, is properly filed in the county in which the defendant, i.e. the Director or keeper of the records of the Arkansas Department of Correction, is located. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-116(a) (1987); See e.g. Blevins v. Norris, 291 Ark. 70, 722 S.W.2d 573 (1987); St. John v. Lockhart, 286 Ark. 234, 691 S.W.2d 148 (1985); Bargo v. Lockhart, 279 Ark. 180, 650 S.W.2d 227 (1983). As neither the Director nor the keeper of the records of the Department of Correction is located in Pulaski County where the plaintiff/appellant filed his suit, he was not entitled to any relief in that court, therefore, there would be no point in continuing with the appeal. The appeal is dismissed but without prejudice to appellant's filing his petition in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lenard v. Kelley
...and is properly filed in the county in which the defendants, or keeper of the records of the ADC, are located. Wiggins v. State , 299 Ark. 180, 181–82, 771 S.W.2d 759, 760 (1989). The director of the ADC is located in Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, Arkansas. SOCNA is a division of the ADC, a......
-
Brown v. Hobbs
...the arguments made in the petition. A petition for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus is civil in nature. Wiggins v. State, 299 Ark. 180, 771 S.W.2d 759 (1989). We have held that there are four requisite conditions before declaratory relief may be granted: (1) there must exist a ......
-
Davis v. State
...the record. Questions concerning parole eligibility are not matters properly considered by the sentencing court. See Wiggins v. State, 299 Ark. 180, 771 S.W.2d 759 (1989). The ADC's calculation of appellant's parole-eligibility date was not a ground for granting a writ of error coram nobis.......
-
White v. Norris, 01-396
...Declaratory Judgment and Mandamus A petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus is civil in nature. Wiggins v. State, 299 Ark. 180, 181, 771 S.W.2d 759, 760 (1989). Such a petition seeking recalculation of a parole eligibility date is properly filed in the county in which the def......