Rodney Williams v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 08-245 Opinion Delivered May 29, 2008 RODNEY WILLIAMS Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 82-834, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE] MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM In 1983, appellant Rodney Williams, who is also known as Rodney Dewayne Williams, was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment for each charge, and the life sentence for robbery was merged with the life sentence for first-degree murder by the trial court. We affirmed. Williams v. State, 281 Ark. 91, 663 S.W.2d 700 (1984), cert. den., 469 U.S. 980 (1984). In 2005, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asked the trial court to direct the prosecuting attorney at that time to process and investigate an affidavit that reported a crime. The alleged crime was conspiracy and perjury committed by police officers in his criminal case. Appellant previously raised this argument in prior applications for postconviction relief for the purpose of setting aside his convictions and sentences. See Williams v. State, CR 83-94 (Ark. Nov. 3, 2005) (per curiam) (seeking petition for writ of error coram nobis); Williams v. State, CR 07-559 (Ark. Oct. 11, 2007) (per curiam) (seeking to correct an illegal sentence). The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, and appellant lodged a pro se appeal from the order in this court. Appellant was advised that his brief-in-chief was due here April 7, 2008. He has not filed a brief nor has he sought leave to file a belated brief. The appellee now asks that the appeal be dismissed for appellant’s failure to pursue the appeal. The motion is granted pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-5. Motion granted; appeal dismissed. -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.