Cite as 2025 Ark. 188 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-227

Opinion Delivered: November 20, 2025 ROBERT EARL THOMPSON APPELLANT APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL; PRO SE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN V. FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; PRO DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, SE MOTION FOR RELEASE ON ARKANSAS DIVISION OF BOND; PRO SE SECOND MOTION CORRECTION; JAMES GIBSON, FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; WARDEN, VARNER UNIT; FRANK PRO SE SECOND MOTION TO T. SPAIN, PROSECUTOR; RICKY PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; RAUSCH, DETECTIVE; DORIS HILL, PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BRIEF INVESTIGATOR WITH ADDENDUM; PRO SE APPELLEES SECOND MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND PENDING APPEAL; PRO SE THIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND PENDING APPEAL; PRO SE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO RESPOND TO APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR RELEASE ON BOND; PRO SE MOTION OBJECTING TO THE TIME LINE AND OVER TEN-PAGE LIMIT [NO. 35CV-24-498]

HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT.

CODY HILAND, Associate Justice

Appellant Robert Earl Thompson appeals from the dismissal of his petition for

declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and writ of mandamus on the grounds that he failed to perfect service of process on the named respondents. Thompson has filed multiple

motions and tendered his brief-in-chief to be filed pending the resolution of the pending

motions. In response, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant appellees’

motion. As the appeal is dismissed, the motions filed by Thompson are moot.

In 2005, a Drew County jury found Thompson guilty of rape, two counts of second-

degree sexual assault, and one count of sexual indecency with a child, and he was sentenced

to an aggregate term of 46 years’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. See Thompson v. State, 99 Ark. App. 422, 262 S.W.3d 193 (2007). In his

petition for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, Thompson asserted his innocence

and sought to set aside his convictions because of alleged constitutional violations.

When it is clear from the record that the appellant could not prevail if an appeal of

an order that denied postconviction relief is permitted to go forward, this court may dismiss

the appeal. Rea v. State, 2021 Ark. 134, at 7 n.1. Because Thompson failed to perfect

service of process on the appellees within 120 days as required, the petition for relief was

subject to dismissal without prejudice under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1). See

Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1) (“If service of process is not made on a defendant within 120 days

after the filing of the complaint, . . . the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without

prejudice on . . . the court’s initiative.”). Arkansas law is well settled that service of valid

process is necessary to give a court personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Shotzman v.

Berumen, 363 Ark. 215, 223, 213 S.W.3d 13, 16 (2005). Moreover, even if the defense

answers on the merits of the petition but also raises the issue of insufficient process as was

2 done here, the issue is not waived. Id. at 231, 213 S.W.3d at 22 (citing Farm Bureau Mut.

Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 315 Ark. 136, 140–41, 865 S.W.2d 643, 645 (1993)).

Here, the record establishes that this is the first time Thompson’s petition for

declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief was dismissed for failure to perfect service and

was dismissed without prejudice. See Jefferson v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 83, at 1–2. Consequently,

the order from which Thompson has appealed is not final on the merits. Id. Without a

final order on the merits, this court does not have appellate jurisdiction. Id.; Nooner v. Hobbs,

2021 Ark. 204, at 2. Without jurisdiction, this court cannot act on either the appeal or the

numerous motions filed by Thompson.

Appeal dismissed; motions moot.

WOMACK, J., concurs.

BRONNI, J., dissents.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Justice, concurring. I concur with the court’s decision to

dismiss Thompson’s appeal and find his litany of motions moot. Whether Thompson failed

to perfect service on the defendants in his underlying lawsuit, however, is irrelevant. 1 The

circuit court should have dismissed Thompson’s lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars

his claims against the State.2 Since the State has asked us to dismiss the appeal, it is proper

to do so, but the dismissal should be because sovereign immunity bars the underlying claims.

I respectfully concur.

1 Taylor v. Ark. Post-Prison Transfer Bd., 2025 Ark. 176, at 4 (Womack, J., concurring). 2 Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20; Perry v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 112, at 5–6 (Womack, J., dissenting); Thurston v. League of Women Voters of Ark., 2022 Ark. 32, at 17, 639 S.W.3d 319, 327 (Womack, J., dissenting).

3 NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Justice, dissenting. The majority dismisses Robert

Thompson’s appeal for lack of a final order, even though the case was dismissed in its entirety

below. For the reasons I previously outlined in Taylor v. Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board,

2025 Ark. 176, at 2 (Bronni, J., dissenting), I would affirm the dismissal and attach preclusive

effect. I respectfully dissent.

Robert Earl Thompson, pro se appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

4