Goodwin v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 28 ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 11-1186 Opinion Delivered CHARLES EDWARD GOODWIN PETITIONER January 26, 2012 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2006-153] V. HON. EDWIN A. KEATON, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT AMENDED RESPONSE REQUESTED. PER CURIAM In 2007, judgment was entered in the Ouachita County Circuit Court reflecting that petitioner Charles Edward Goodwin had been found guilty by a jury of attempted capital felony murder with aggravated robbery as the underlying felony offense. A sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. We affirmed. Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (2008). On June 4, 2008, petitioner timely filed in the trial court a pro se verified petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2008). In the petition, he contended primarily that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. On November 29, 2011, petitioner filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, contending that Circuit Judge Edwin A. Keaton had not acted on the Rule 37.1 petition in a timely manner. Judge Keaton filed a response to the mandamus petition to which was appended a copy of an order entered December 2, 2011, that disposed of the Rule 37.1 petition. There was no reference in the response to the delay of approximately three-and-one- Cite as 2012 Ark. 28 half years in acting on the petition. As it is not clear what circumstances caused the lengthy delay in acting on the Rule 37.1 petition, we direct the respondent to file an amended response within ten days setting out the reasons for the delay. Amended response requested. 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.
