Standridge v. Putman

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Standridge v. Putman, 2014 Ark. 208 (Ark. 2014)
Per Curiam

Standridge v. Putman

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. 208

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR-14-235

Opinion Delivered May 8, 2014 TRACY M. STANDRIDGE PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

PETITIONER MANDAMUS

[BAXTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, v. NO. 03CR-10-57] HON. JOHN R. PUTMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE

RESPONDENT PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

On March 13, 2014, petitioner Tracy Standridge filed the instant pro se petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner contends that Circuit Judge John R. Putman has failed to act in a timely manner on a pro se petition pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010) that he filed in the Baxter County Circuit Court on November 30, 2012. Petitioner seeks a writ from this court compelling Judge Putman to act on the petition.

Judge Putman filed a response to the mandamus petition on March 20, 2014, in which he stated that the Rule 37.1 petition was not assigned to his court. Appended to the response was a copy of the order of this court issued January 28, 2011, assigning Special Judge Robert McCorkindale to hear petitioner’s cases and all ancillary proceedings that may arise in connection with those cases.

It is the responsibility of the petitioner to name the correct respondent in a mandamus action. As the Rule 37.1 petition is not assigned to Judge Putman’s court, the petition for writ

Cite as 2014 Ark. 208 of mandamus is denied.

Petition denied.

Tracy M. Standridge, pro se petitioner.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published