Santonio Turner v. Hon. Wendell Griffen

Digitally signed by Susan P. Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of Cite as 2019 Ark. 271 this document Date: SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 2022.07.20 No. CR-19-485 10:06:28 -05'00'

SANTONIO TURNER Opinion Delivered October 10, 2019 PETITIONER PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF V. MANDAMUS [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, COURT, FIFTH DIVISION, NO. CIRCUIT JUDGE 60CR-02-2823] RESPONDENT PETITION MOOT.

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice

Petitioner Santonio Turner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he contended that the Honorable Wendell Griffen, circuit judge, had not acted in a timely manner on a “petition to reconsider and/or modify sentence” filed on July 16, 2018.1 The Attorney General’s office filed a response on Judge Griffen’s behalf, stating that an order had been entered denying Turner’s petition to reconsider.2

The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right to enforce the performance of a duty. Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152. A writ of mandamus

1 The “petition to reconsider and/or modify sentence” was filed in reference to Turner’s judgment-and-commitment order filed-marked on November 20, 2003, for which he was sentenced to 456 months’ imprisonment for the offenses of rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault on a family or household member. Turner subsequently filed a motion to expedite on December 17, 2018, contending he had not received a ruling regarding the petition to reconsider. 2 The June 18, 2019 file-marked order denying the petition to reconsider was attached as exhibit A to the response.

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. Id.

As a general rule, this court will not review issues that are moot because to do so would be to render an advisory opinion, which this court will not do. Griffin v. Alexander, 2017 Ark. 235. Generally, a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy. Thornton v. Guynn, 2018 Ark. 211. Here, the petition that was the subject of the mandamus action—the petition to reconsider and/or modify—has been acted on by the circuit judge, rendering the mandamus action moot.

Petition moot.