Davis v. Pope
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 553
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 09-336
Opinion Delivered
WILLIE G. DAVIS, JR.
Petitioner
v.
HON. SAMUEL POPE, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
November 5, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR REHEARING,
PRO SE AMENDED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR RULE ON
CLERK TO FILE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT
CERTIFIED RECORD, AND PRO SE
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
DESHA COUNTY, CR 95-110]
MOTION FOR REHEARING
TREATED AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENIED;
AMENDED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION DENIED;
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2008, petitioner Willie G. Davis, Jr., tendered a pro se petition for writ of mandamus to this
court. It was returned to petitioner because it was not accompanied by a certified record of the
proceedings in the lower court. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-1(a), a certified copy of
the record is required for this court to assume jurisdiction of a petition for writ of mandamus. Hall v.
Griffin, 2009 Ark. 494 (per curiam), citing Dillard v. Keith, 336 Ark. 521, 986 S.W.2d 100 (1999); Davis v.
Dennis, 2009 Ark. 474 (per curiam).
Petitioner then filed a pro se motion for rule on clerk in this court seeking to proceed with the
petition for writ of mandamus without a certified record. We denied the motion. Davis v. Pope, 2009
Cite as 2009 Ark. 553
Ark. 313 (unpublished per curiam).
Now before us are petitioner’s pro se motion for rehearing, amended motion for
reconsideration, and motion for appointment of counsel. We treat the motion for rehearing as a motion
for reconsideration and deny it and also deny the amended motion for reconsideration. The motion for
appointment of counsel is moot.
We need not repeat our prior opinion except to reiterate that a certified record of the lower
court proceedings is necessary for this court to assume jurisdiction of a mandamus action. Petitioner
has stated no basis for reconsideration of our decision on the matter.1
Motion for rehearing treated as motion for reconsideration and denied; amended motion for
reconsideration denied; motion for appointment of counsel moot.
1
Petitioner makes reference in the motions for reconsideration to his desire to appeal from a
particular order entered by the circuit court and appears to desire to proceed with a mandamus action as a
means to have this court review the order. A mandamus action, however, is not a substitute for an appeal.
Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988).
-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.
