Russell Berger v. Honorable David Reynolds, Circuit Judge

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­1134  Opinion Delivered  January 17, 2008  PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF  MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF  FAULKNER COUNTY, CR 98­499]  RUSSELL BERGER  Petitioner  v.  PETITION MOOT.  HON. DAVID REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT  JUDGE Respondent  PER CURIAM  On October 29, 2007, petitioner Russell Berger filed in this court a pro se petition for writ  of mandamus.  He contended in the petition that the Honorable David Reynolds, Circuit Judge, had  failed to act in a timely manner on a pro se motion for credit for time spent in custody filed  by  petitioner on February 10, 2005.  Judge Reynolds filed a response to the mandamus petition to which  was appended a copy of an amended judgment of conviction entered in the case on November 2,  2007, crediting petitioner with 342 days in custody against the sentences imposed in 1999.  As there  was no reference in the response to the apparent delay of approximately thirty­three months in acting  on the motion for credit for time served, we requested that respondent file an amended response  explaining the reasons for the delay.  The amended response is now before us.  Respondent notes that when preparing the original response he overlooked the fact that on  March 1, 2005, he had entered an order disposing of the motion.  Respondent has appended to the amended  response  a copy of the order entered March 1, 2005.  The order does not specifically  mention a request for credit for time spent in custody, but respondent avers that the March 1, 2005,  1  order disposed of the motion.  As the fact that an order was entered less than one month after the  motion was filed indicates that there was in fact no undue delay in acting on the February 10, 2005,  motion, the mandamus petition is moot.  Petition moot. 1  The order refers to the pleading filed by petitioner as a “Petition for Post­Conviction  Remedy.  ­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.