Williams v. Porch
| Decision Date | 04 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–17–481,CR–17–481 |
| Citation | 534 S.W.3d 152 |
| Parties | Roderick R. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. Honorable Steven PORCH, Circuit Judge, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petitioner Roderick R. Williams filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Honorable Steven Porch, circuit judge, to rule on a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2011); a motion for a copy of the trial transcript; a motion for appointment of counsel; and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, which were filed in the Desha County Circuit Court on December 29, 2011. Williams also requests that this court compel Judge Porch to declare Williams's sentences and convictions void, grant an evidentiary hearing, appoint counsel, and order a new trial. Judge Porch responded that he had been appointed in January of this year and he "can hardly be said to have clearly failed to perform his duty only some six months later given his inheritance of the caseload of the circuit division to which he was appointed." Because Williams's petition and related motions have been pending for an unreasonable length of time, we grant Williams's request for rulings on the petition and motions but deny Williams's request that Judge Porch vacate the convictions and sentences, conduct an evidentiary hearing, and order a new trial.
Williams was convicted by a jury of capital murder, first-degree domestic battering, endangering the welfare of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon, and he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole plus a term of seventy-two years. We affirmed. Williams v. State , 2011 Ark. 432, at 1, 385 S.W.3d 157, 159. The mandate was issued by this court on November 1, 2011, and Williams filed his petition for Rule 37.1 relief within the sixty-day time limit. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c)(ii) (2011).
The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. State v. Vittitow , 358 Ark. 98, 103, 186 S.W.3d 237, 240 (2004). A writ of mandamus is issued by this court to compel an official or judge to take some action. Id. A writ of mandamus will not lie to control or review matters of discretion and is used to enforce an established right. Id. Issuance of the writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Parker v. Crow , 2010 Ark. 371, at 6, 368 S.W.3d 902, 907. Therefore, mandamus will compel a judge to act when he or she should act, but it will not be used to tell a judge how to decide a judicial question. Branch v. Winfield , 80 Ark. 61, 95 S.W. 1007 (1906).
The resolution of the issues raised in Williams's Rule 37.1 petition, together with his request for appointment of counsel and his asserted right to an evidentiary hearing, are matters that are entirely within the discretion of the trial court and outside the purview of mandamus proceedings. It is undisputed that the trial court has discretion pursuant to Rule 37.3(a) to decide whether the files or records are sufficient to sustain the court's findings without a hearing. Sanders v. State , 352 Ark. 16, 25, 98 S.W.3d 35, 41 (2003). We have also made clear that the appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings is discretionary and not mandated. Mancia v. State , 2015 Ark. 115, at 27, 459 S.W.3d 259, 276.
However, a court does have a ministerial duty to timely act on pleadings filed, regardless of the merit of those pleadings. See Thompson v. Erwin , 310 Ark. 533, 534–35, 838 S.W.2d 353, 354 (1992) (). In his response to Williams's mandamus petition, Judge Porch relies on our holding in Eason v. Erwin , 300 Ark. 384, 387, 781 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1989) (per curiam), for the proposition that Williams has made no clear showing that Judge Porch failed to perform his duty. As stated above, Judge Porch contends in his response that he inherited a caseload from the previous circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
... ... This court does not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Williams v. State , 2016 Ark. 459, 504 S.W.3d 603. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with ... ...
-
Lane v. State
...Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259. The appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings is discretionary and not mandated. Williams v. Porch , 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152. The trial court is given its discretion to appoint counsel for Rule 37 proceedings under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure......
-
Davis v. Kelley
...Issuance of the writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152. In this instance, Davis's only established right to access his crime-lab file is grounded in Arkansas Code Annotated secti......
-
Swift v. Kelley
...counsel for a Rule 37 petition is discretionary, not mandated. See e.g., Lane v. Arkansas, 564 S.W.3d 524, 533 (2019); Williams v. Porch, 534 S.W.3d 152, 154 (2018); Detherow v. Arkansas, 476 S.W.3d 155 (2015); Viveros v. Arkansas, 277 S.W.3d 223, 225 (2008). Mr. Swift provides no basis upo......
-
Chapter 17 Special and Extraordinary Proceedings
...of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, at 2, 534 S.W.3d 152, 154. • Through a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court will compel judges to act when they have a duty to act, but the court will not use t......