Mazurek v. Piazza , 2014 Ark. 355 ( 2014 )

  •                                      Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 355
                      SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                            No.   CR-14-605
                                                       Opinion Delivered September   4, 2014
                                   PETITIONER          PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
    V.                                                 [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                                       NO. 60CR-06-2376]
                     RESPONDENT                        PETITION MOOT IN PART AND
                                                       DENIED IN PART.
                                           PER CURIAM
           Now before us is a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Gavino
    Mazurek. On February 11, 2014, petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief pursuant to
    Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2007) was denied in the Pulaski County Circuit
    Court. On February 26, 2014, petitioner filed in the circuit court a motion for modification of
    the order. On July 9, 2014, petitioner filed in this court the instant petition seeking a writ
    compelling Circuit Judge Christopher Piazza to act on the motion for modification of order and
    other relief. Judge Piazza timely filed a response to the petition to which was appended a copy
    of his order, entered July 14, 2014, disposing of the motion.
           As the motion that was the subject of the mandamus action has been acted on by the
    respondent, the mandamus action is now moot with respect to the request that the respondent
    be directed to enter a ruling on it. Glaze v. Reynolds, 
    2013 Ark. 43
     (per curiam); McCoy v. Pope,
    2010 Ark. 183
     (per curiam). Even though the respondent has acted on the motion that was the
    subject of the mandamus action, rendering it moot, we note that Judge Piazza in the response
                                          Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 355
    to the mandamus petition states that he was unaware that the motion had been filed because he
    did not receive a copy of it from petitioner. However, this court has specifically said that lack
    of service is not in itself good cause for delay in disposing of a pleading on the court’s docket.
    See McNichols v. Elmore, 
    2014 Ark. 133
     (per curiam); see also Paige v. Reynolds, 
    2013 Ark. 73
    curiam). This is true for all filings including Rule 37.1 petitions where a petitioner may have an
    obligation to comply with notification rules in order to obtain relief under the Rule. McNichols,
    2014 Ark. 133
    ; Paige, 
    2013 Ark. 73
           As we have made clear in prior opinions, the prompt resolution of all matters before a
    court is vital to the administration of justice. McNichols, 
    2014 Ark. 133
    ; Paige, 
    2013 Ark. 73
    Nelson v. Glover, 
    2012 Ark. 307
     (per curiam); Higgins v. Proctor, 
    2009 Ark. 496
     (per curiam). In
    order for the courts to comply with this judicial obligation, a system must be in place in every
    judicial district whereby each judge is made fully aware of all filings on his or her docket.
    2014 Ark. 133
    ; Paige, 
    2013 Ark. 73
    ; Goodwin v. Keaton, 
    2012 Ark. 137
     (per curiam).
    We take this opportunity to again urge all judicial districts to ensure that the district has a plan
    whereby judges are promptly informed of all filings in their courts. See Nelson, 
    2012 Ark. 307
    ; see
    also Cabral v. Keith, 
    364 Ark. 456
    220 S.W.3d 683
     (2005); McCoy v. Phillips, 
    357 Ark. 368
    166 S.W.3d 564
     (2004) (per curiam).
           In his prayer for relief, petitioner also asks that this court order the respondent to “pay
    costs of the prosecution of this action” on the ground that the respondent did not conform to
    the requirements of Rule 37 in the original order and to order the trial court to correct the order.
    The request is denied. It is not clear what costs, if any, were associated with this mandamus
                                          Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 355
    proceeding, but, if there were costs in some form, petitioner has presented nothing to
    demonstrate that he is entitled to those costs from the respondent.
           As for petitioner’s request that this court require respondent to correct the original order,
    petitioner’s remedy for any claim that there was error in the order was not by a mandamus action
    filed with this court. Petitioner here filed a motion for a ruling on issues not covered by the Rule
    37.1 order, which is the proper remedy available to a petitioner when he believes that the order
    does not address all issues raised. A mandamus action is not an alternative to proceeding with
    such a motion.
           Petition moot in part and denied in part.
           Gavino Mazurek, pro se petitioner.
           Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.

Document Info

DocketNumber: CR-14-605

Citation Numbers: 2014 Ark. 355

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/4/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014