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 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.