Digitally signed by Susan Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of Cite As 2019 Ark. 362 this document Date: SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 2023.12.13 No. CR-19-705 11:09:06 -06'00' Opinion Delivered December 5, 2019 ANDROUS HALL PETITIONER PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [PHILLIPS COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 54CR-96- 271] STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT PETITION MOOT.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice

Petitioner Androus Hall filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he contended

that the Honorable Dion Wilson, circuit judge, had not acted in a timely manner on a pro

se petition for correction/reduction of sentence and declaratory judgment filed on August

16, 2017, and a pro se motion for production of documents and petition to correct illegal

sentence, both filed on May 6, 2019. The Attorney General’s Office filed a response on the

State’s behalf, stating that orders have been entered denying all the above-referenced

petitions and motions.1

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 a judge to take some action. Id. Issuance of

1 Hall’s petition to correct illegal sentence and motion for production of documents were denied in orders file-marked on September 11, 2019, and the petition for correction/reduction of sentence and declaratory judgment was “deemed denied” in an order filed-marked on September 12, 2019. 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. Id. Because Mr. Hall has received

the relief he sought, and the subject of the mandamus action has been acted on by the

respondent circuit judge, the mandamus action is moot.

Petition moot.

Androus Hall, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.

2