Hall v. Griffin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 09-74
Opinion Delivered
TOMMY HALL
Petitioner
April 30, 2009
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR CERTIFIED
COPIES [CIRCUIT COURT OF
MILLER COUNTY, CR 2004-164]
v.
MOTIONS DENIED.
JOE E. GRIFFIN, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
PER CURIAM
In 2008, petitioner Tommy Hall filed a pro se motion in the trial court pertaining to a 2006
judgment reflecting petitioner’s conviction on a charge of the manufacture, delivery or possession
of a controlled substance for which he received a sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment. In 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 and requesting this
court 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. As a result, we denied the petition as to the request that this court grant the motion and
held the petition moot as to the request concerning action by the Miller County Circuit Court on the
motion. Hall v. Griffin, CR 09-74 (Ark. Feb. 26, 2009) (per curiam).
Now petitioner has filed the pending motions in which he asks that this court provide him
with a certified copy of the documents that made up the record in the mandamus proceeding so that
he may perfect an appeal from the January 29, 2009, order denying his motion in circuit court.
Petitioner acknowledges that he is not entitled to receive the copies from this court, but asserts that
the circuit clerk refuses to provide him with the copies. In essence, petitioner requests that we treat
the documents as the record for a possible appeal from the order in circuit court because he requests
that we return the original documents filed as the record to him. Should petitioner elect to proceed
with an appeal from a circuit court order, he is responsible for timely filing a notice of appeal and
obtaining from the circuit clerk the certified record necessary to perfect the appeal. Any allegations
concerning a breach of duty by the circuit clerk should be addressed to the circuit court.
There is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure for this court to take documents
from a record lodged in this court and permit those documents to form the record for a separate
appeal or to return the record to a petitioner once the court has acted. The record lodged is not the
property of an appellant or petitioner, and a petitioner has no absolute right to a personal copy of it,
or to utilize it for another filing. See Bradshaw v. State, 372 Ark. 305, 275 S.W.3d 173 (2008) (per
curiam). Petitioner has shown no reason for exception in this case. Accordingly, we deny the
motion.
Motions denied.
-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.
