Hall v. Griffin

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 104 (unpublished) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 09-74 Opinion Delivered February 26, 2009 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER COUNTY, CR 2004-164] TOMMY HALL Petitioner v. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND MOOT IN PART. JOE E. GRIFFIN, CIRCUIT JUDGE Respondent PER CURIAM A judgment entered on November 22, 2006, reflects that petitioner Tommy Hall entered a negotiated plea of guilty or nolo contendere to manufacture, delivery or possession of a controlled substance and received a sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On December 11, 2008, petitioner filed a pro se motion to suppress in the trial court. On January 27, 2009, petitioner filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus contending that the Honorable Joe E. Griffin, Circuit Judge, had failed to act in a timely manner on the motion to suppress filed in Miller County Circuit Court and requesting this court to compel the trial court, or to act on its own initiative, to grant the motion. Judge Griffin filed a response to the mandamus petition attaching a copy of his order entered on January 29, 2009, that disposed of the motion to suppress. To the extent that the petition would have this court order that the motion be granted, or that we grant it directly, we deny it. Mandamus is a clear remedy to compel an action by a Cite as 2009 Ark. 104 (unpublished) public body to enforce an established right, where a violation of state law is clear and not discretionary. Griffen v. Ark. Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 368 Ark. 557, 247 S.W.3d 816 (2007). The writ will not lie to control or review matters of discretion. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771, 20 S.W.3d 301 (2000). The relief petitioner requests is not appropriate to the writ he seeks. As to the extent that the petition seeks to compel the trial court simply to act upon the motion, the court has now provided its ruling. The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore moot. Petition denied in part and moot in part. -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.