Clyde Johnson v. Honorable David Burnett, Circuit Judge
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
CLYDE JOHNSON
Petitioner
CR 06-239
Opinion Delivered
April 13, 2006
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, CR 90-181]
v.
HON. DAVID BURNETT, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
PETITION DENIED
PER CURIAM
In 1991, judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County reflecting that Clyde
Johnson had been found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender
to fifty years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Johnson v. State, CACR 00815 (Ark. App. October 17, 2001).
On March 26, 2004, the trial court granted Johnson’s petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. The order provided that he would enter a negotiated plea
of guilty to “the crime charged” and be sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment with credit for
a particular period of time spent in custody. An amended judgment was entered in the trial court on
March 26, 2004, providing that Johnson was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for
aggravated robbery.
A second Rule 37.1 order was entered on April 4, 2005, that was not labeled an amended
order, but which had the effect of amending that part of the March 26, 2004, order pertaining to
credit against the sentence for time spent in custody. The second order also set a sentence of twentyfive years for the crime charged but added that the sentence was for a Class B Felony rather than a
Class Y Felony.
On March 7, 2006, Johnson filed the instant pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which
he asks that this court compel Circuit Judge David Burnett to enter an order, or to correct an order
previously entered, to “amend the charge” for aggravated robbery to one of robbery with a maximum
sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment as a Class B felony. The apparent crux of Johnson’s petition
is that the sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment as imposed in the Rule 37.1 orders and the
judgment entered in 2004 exceeded the sentencing range for a Class B felony. He argues that Judge
Burnett should be directed by this court to amend the charge and reduce the sentenced imposed to
twenty years.
We need not reach the question of whether the sentence imposed was excessive because it
is clear that mandamus is not the proper remedy to raise the question in this court. The purpose of
a writ of mandamus in a civil or a criminal case is to enforce an established right or to enforce the
performance of a duty. Smith v. Fox, 358 Ark. 388,___ S.W.3d ___ (September 16, 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. Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20,
159 S.W.3d 285 (2004). If Johnson was not satisfied with either the terms of the March 26, 2004,
or the April 4, 2005, order, his remedy was an appeal from the orders, not a mandamus action in this
court. A mandamus action is not a substitute for an appeal. Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d
129 (1988).
Petition denied.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
