Lucille Oaks Shanks Smith v. Michael Huckabee, Chris Morris, Leroy Brownlee, John Felts, Carolyn Robinson, William Walker, Larry Zeno, Erma Hendrix, John Belkens, Gene Forrest, Miriam Ellington, Charlotte Sumner, Linday Murphy, John Maples, Maggie Caple

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-873

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

LUCILLE OAKS SHANKS SMITH

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL HUCKABEE, CHRIS MORRIS, LEROY BROWNLEE, JOHN FELTS, CAROLYN ROBINSON, WILLIAM WALKER, LARRY ZENO, ERMA HENDRIX, JOHN BELKENS, GENE FORREST, MIRIAM ELLINGTON, CHARLOTTE SUMNER, LINDA MURPHY, JOHN MAPLES, MAGGIE CAPLE

Respondents

Opinion Delivered November 10, 2005

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [ARKANSAS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 1974-17, HON. DAVID G. HENRY, JUDGE]

PETITION DENIED

PER CURIAM

Lucille Oaks Shanks Smith, a prisoner incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Arkansas County Circuit Court, which was denied. Smith has now lodged the record for that matter in this court, but rather than appeal the order, Smith has, instead, filed a petition for mandamus in this court requesting the same relief.

Petitioner Smith appears to be requesting that we compel the circuit court to enter the writ, or that we enter the writ directly. Petitioner now requests this court, and previously requested the circuit court, to compel the governor and others to recognize certain allegations concerning her sentence and to compel her appearance before the parole board, basing those requests upon a number of assertions that are simply challenges to the judgment against her, and that could have been raised in an appeal of her conviction. Because the relief petitioner seeks is not appropriate to the writ, we must deny the petition.

If petitioner is requesting that we compel the circuit court to issue the writ, it is clear that petitioner is attempting to compel the lower court to change a prior ruling. Extraordinary relief is not a substitute for an appeal. Dean v. Williams, 339 Ark. 439, 6 S.W.3d 89 (1999). Nor can petitioner use the writ to challenge her conviction by requesting this court to issue the writ directly. This court has refused to issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner had the adequate remedy of raising the issue on appeal. Johnson v. Hargrove, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 16, 2005) (quoting Hanley v. Arkansas Claims Comm'n, 333 Ark. 159, 164, 970 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1998)). An extraordinary writ such as mandamus is not available to the pro se petitioner to challenge a conviction in substitute for appeal. Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988).

Petition denied.