Donnietha Bradford v. Honorable David Goodson, Circuit Judge

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-794

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DONNIETHA BRADFORD

Petitioner

v.

HON. DAVID GOODSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

Respondent

Opinion Delivered September 22, 2005

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT, CR 94-373 (DG)]

PETITION DENIED

PER CURIAM

On March 28, 2005, Donnietha Bradford filed a pro se amended petition for writ of mandamus in this court contending that Circuit Judge David Goodson had failed to act in a timely manner on a motion to allow allocution and to correct sentence filed by petitioner in the Circuit Court of Desha County. On April 14, 2005, Judge Goodson entered an order denying the request for allocution but granting the request to correct the sentence. An amended judgment of conviction was subsequently entered in petitioner's criminal case. We declared the mandamus petition to be moot because the court had acted in the matters before it. Bradford v. Goodson, CR 05-165 (Ark. May 26, 2005) (per curiam).

On July 20, 2005, Donnietha Bradford filed the instant pro se petition for writ of mandamus, again naming Judge Goodson as respondent. Petitioner argues that the amended judgment of conviction entered in her criminal case erroneously indicated that she was allowed to make a statement before sentencing. She asks this court to direct Judge Goodson "to be enjoy the right to make a statement before sentencing," by which it may be assumed that petitioner desires this court to direct the respondent to grant the motion for allocution denied by the court in its April 14, 2005, order.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The purpose of a mandamus action is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Smith v. Fox, 357 Ark. ----, ---S.W.3d ---- (September 16, 2004). A writ of mandamus is issued by this court only to compel an official or judge to take some action. Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 356 Ark.----, --- S.W.3d ---- (April 15, 2004). When requesting a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the absence of any other adequate remedy. Id. A mandamus action is not a substitute for appeal, and a petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus from this court to compel the lower court to make a particular ruling to change a prior ruling.

Petition denied.

Imber, J., not participating.