William Greg Smith v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 08-85 Opinion Delivered  WILLIAM GREG SMITH Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent  February 28, 2007  PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI [CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, CR 2004-270, HON. JOHN H. WRIGHT, JUDGE] PETITION DENIED.  PER CURIAM  A jury found petitioner William Greg Smith guilty of engaging children in sexually explicit  conduct for use in visual or print medium and sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment in the  Arkansas Department of Correction. This court affirmed the judgment. Smith v. State, 363 Ark. 456,  215 S.W.3d 626 (2005).  Petitioner filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief  under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 that was denied.  This court dismissed petitioner’s appeal of that order.  Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 611, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam).  In 2007, petitioner filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and, on a later  date, a petition for declaratory judgment.  Both petitions were denied.  Petitioner did not appeal those  orders.  He now brings in this court a petition for writ of mandamus  and,  either  additionally or  alternatively, certiorari. Petitioner alleges that the trialcourt committed a number of errors concerning  his petitions and he requests this court review his petition for habeas corpus relief and direct the trial  court to “process” his petition for declaratory judgment. Petitioner contends that the State did not respond to his petitions for writ of habeas corpus  and declaratory judgment  and asserts that  this failure should have prevented the trial court  from  considering his petitions.  Petitioner appears to mistakenly believe that the State’s failure to respond  somehow prevented him from bringing an appeal of the trial court’s orders denying the two petitions.  He cites no authority for, and does not explain, that position, merely contending that the petitions  were therefore “unripe” for appellate review.  We will not consider an argument without authority.  See Rikard v. State, 354 Ark. 345, 123 S.W.3d 114 (2003).  The  purpose  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  is  to  enforce  an  established  right  or  to  enforce  the  performance of a duty.  Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004).  It is issued by this court only to compel an officer or judge to take some action.  Arkansas Democrat­  Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000).  A petitioner must show a clear and  certain right to the relief sought and the absence of any other adequate remedy when requesting a writ  of mandamus.  Id. at 777, 20 S.W.3d at 304.  Extraordinary relief, such as mandamus, is not a substitute for an appeal.  Dean v. Williams,  339 Ark. 439, 6 S.W.3d 89 (1999).  Nor can a petitioner use the writ to challenge his 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 an issue on appeal.  Johnson v. Hargrove,  362 Ark. 649, 210 S.W.3d 79 (2005)(quoting Hanley v. Arkansas Claims Comm’n, 333 Ark. 159,  164, 970 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1998)).  An extraordinary writ is not available to a petitioner to challenge  a conviction in substitute for appeal.  See Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988).  Here, petitioner would have this court directly review his petition for habeas relief and order  the trial court  to  provide relief on his petition for declaratory judgment.  He reiterates the same ­2­  arguments made in his petitions in the trial court in support of our granting mandamus.  We will not  consider those arguments as it is clear that petitioner could have brought an appeal of the trial court’s  orders denying relief, and chose not to do so.  He seeks in this court the same relief that would be  sought  in  an  appeal.  There  was  an  adequate  remedy  available  to  petitioner  without  resort  to  mandamus.  As to petitioner’s request for certiorari, our standard of review includes two requirements that  must be satisfied in order for this court to grant a writ of certiorari.  Helena­West Helena Sch. Dist.  # 2 of Phillips County v. Circuit Court of Phillips County, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 15,  2007).  The  first  requirement  is  that  there  can  be  no  other  adequate  remedy  but  for  the  writ  of  certiorari.  Second, a writ of certiorari lies only where (1) it is apparent on the face of the record that  there  has  been  a  plain,  manifest,  clear,  and  gross  abuse  of  discretion,  or  (2)  there  is  a  lack  of  jurisdiction, an act in excess of jurisdiction on the face of the record, or the proceedings are erroneous  on the face of the record.  Id.  Here, appellant had the remedy of an appeal.  We have no need for the record to be brought  up through a writ of certiorari because we will not review the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s  petition for declaratory judgment.  To the extent that petitioner may be requesting a belated appeal  of that  decision,  we  note  that  no  notice  of  appeal  appears  in  the  partial  record  before  us.    If  a  petitioner fails to timely file notice of appeal, a belated appeal in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.­­  Crim. 2(e) will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to  comply with proper procedure.  Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam).  As previously noted in regard to his allegations concerning the absence of a response by the State,  petitioner has stated no good cause for that failure. ­3­  Petitioner has not shown a basis for relief either through a writ of mandamus or certiorari.  As a result, we deny the petition.  Petition denied. ­4­ 

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.