Leach v. Looney , 2015 Ark. 9 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                        Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 9
    
                       SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                             No.   CR-14-991
    
                                                        Opinion Delivered January   15, 2015
    RAYMOND D. LEACH III
                                   PETITIONER           PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
                                                        MANDAMUS
    V.                                                  [POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                                        NO. 57CR-09-95]
    HONORABLE J.W. LOONEY, CIRCUIT
    JUDGE
                      RESPONDENT                        PETITION MOOT.
    
    
                                             PER CURIAM
    
    
           Now before us is a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Raymond D.
    
    Leach III. On July 9, 2012, petitioner filed in the Polk County Circuit Court a pro se petition
    
    for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). In the
    
    mandamus petition, petitioner seeks to have Circuit Judge J.W. Looney enter a final order on
    
    the Rule 37.1 petition.
    
            Judge Looney timely filed a response to the petition to which was appended a copy of
    
    a letter order, entered October 3, 2012, expressing that the petition was without merit and
    
    directing the prosecuting attorney to prepare a final order denying relief. Respondent states that
    
    he was unaware that the final order was never drafted and entered until this mandamus action
    
    was filed. Respondent appended to the response a copy of the final order that was subsequently
    
    entered on November 25, 2014, denying the Rule 37.1 petition.
    
           As the Rule 37.1 petition that is 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 final order on it. See Glaze v. Reynolds, 
    2013 Ark. 43
     (per
                                            Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 9
    
    curiam); McCoy v. Pope, 
    2010 Ark. 183
     (per curiam). Even though the respondent has acted on
    
    the petition that is the subject of the mandamus action, rendering it moot, we take this
    
    opportunity to note that the prompt resolution of all matters before a court is vital to the
    
    administration of justice. McNichols v. Elmore, 
    2014 Ark. 133
     (per curiam); Paige v. Reynolds, 
    2013 Ark. 73
     (per curiam); 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 the status of his or her docket.
    
    See McNichols, 
    2014 Ark. 133
    ; see also Paige, 
    2013 Ark. 73
    ; Goodwin v. Keaton, 
    2012 Ark. 137
     (per
    
    curiam). We urge all judicial districts to ensure that the district has a plan whereby judges are
    
    aware of the state of the docket for all cases in their courts. See Nelson, 
    2012 Ark. 307
    .
    
           Petition moot.
    
           Raymond D. Leach III, pro se petitioner.
    
           Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.
    
    
    
    
                                                      2
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: CR-14-991

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ark. 9

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/15/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016