Vera Arnold v. Honorable Willard Proctor, Judge
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
May 1, 2003
HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR, JUDGE
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT AND FOR OTHER RELIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-692]
MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT AND FOR OTHER RELIEF DENIED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MOOT
Vera Arnold filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court contending that the Honorable Willard Proctor, Circuit Judge, had failed to act on her petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County on January 21, 2000, and assigned at that time to another judge who denied it on August 2, 2000. Petitioner Arnold appealed to this court, and we reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on April 11, 2002. Arnold v. State, CR 01-277 (April 11, 2002) (per curiam).
On remand the petition was assigned to Judge Proctor's court. On April 10, 2003, Judge Proctor entered an order denying the Rule 37 petition. As the circuit court has acted on the Rule 37 petition which was the subject of mandamus action, the petition for writ of mandamus is moot.1
On April 17, 2003, petitioner Arnold filed in this court as part of the mandamus action
a motion asking that Judge Proctor be held in contempt and further asking that this court refer Judge Proctor to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission as a result of his conduct with respect to the Rule 37 proceeding. We find no cause to grant the relief sought by petitioner in the motion.
Petition for writ of mandamus moot; motion to hold respondent in contempt and for
for other relief denied.
1 Petitioner Arnold filed a motion to strike the State's response to her mandamus petition. In light of the fact that the petition for writ of mandamus has been declared moot,the motion to strike the State's response is also moot.