Doyle Holt, Sr. v. Honorable Jodi Raines Dennis, Circuit Judge
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-438
Opinion Delivered
DOYLE HOLT, SR.
Petitioner
June 19, 2008
v.
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, CR 2005-579]
HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
PETITION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
On April 6, 2006, judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County reflecting
that petitioner Doyle Holt, Sr., had entered a plea of guilty to multiple felony charges for which he
was sentenced to an aggregate term of 160 years’ imprisonment. On May 5, 2006, petitioner filed
in the trial court a pro se motion to correct the sentence. On April 9, 2008, petitioner filed in this
court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the Honorable Jodi Raines Dennis,
Circuit Judge, had failed to act on the motion in a timely manner. Judge Dennis filed a response to
the mandamus petition to which was appended a copy of an order entered April 18, 2008, that
disposed of the motion. As there was no reference in the response to the delay of approximately two
years in acting on the motion, we requested that an amended response be filed explaining the lengthy
delay in acting. Holt v. Dennis, CR 08-438 (Ark. May 8, 2008) (per curiam). The amended
response is now before us.
Judge Dennis, who sits in the Fifth Division of the Eleventh Judicial District, West, notes
that pursuant to the district’s Administrative Plan, upon filing, all postconviction pleadings in cases
where the petitioner is incarcerated are to be transferred to the district’s Second Division. She states
that it was thus her responsibility when she received petitioner’s motion to have it transferred and
that it was her belief that the transfer had occurred until the filing of the mandamus petition alerted
her to the error.1
Inasmuch as the reason for the delay in acting on the motion was a mere error and there is
no apparent lack of an efficient plan for assigning cases in the district, there is no cause to request
a further response. Petitioner’s motion has been acted on by the court, and the mandamus action is
now moot.
Petition moot.
1
Petitioner tendered a response to the respondent’s response in which he contended that he had
written to Judge Dennis. Because this response was tendered only, we will not address it.
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.
