Glaze v. Reynolds (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 434 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 12-433 Opinion Delivered November 15, 2012 V. PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 23CR 09-454, 23CR 09-1138] HON. DAVID REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT REMANDED. CHARIELL ALI GLAZE PETITIONER PER CURIAM Petitioner Chariell Ali Glaze, proceeding pro se, sought a writ of mandamus and other relief on claims that the respondent, the Honorable David Reynolds, Circuit Judge, had failed to promptly act on pro se pleadings in two criminal cases filed against petitioner in the Faulkner County Circuit Court. We previously disposed of some of those claims, but requested an amended response on petitioner s claims concerning the disposition of certain pro se pleadings in one of the two cases, CR 09-454. Glaze v. Reynolds, 2012 Ark. 330 (per curiam). Judge Reynolds s amended response includes an order of findings and conclusions of law that relies on a new sentencing order entered May 8, 2012, in CR 09-454. The problem, however, is that we deemed that order and the one entered in CR 09-1138 invalid.1 See Glaze, 2012 Ark. 330. We therefore remand the matter to the circuit court for entry of a sentencing order reflecting an appropriate disposition in CR 09-454 and request the circuit court provide 1 The May 8, 2012 order s invalidity stems from the fact that it reflects a negotiated plea of guilty. Glaze, however was convicted following a jury trial, and we affirmed his convictions on appeal, while reversing and remanding solely for resentencing. See Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464, ___ S.W.3d ___. Cite as 2012 Ark. 434 the documentation thereof within thirty days of the date of this opinion. Petitioner s request for mandamus relief will be held in abeyance pending our receipt of the circuit court s documentation. Remanded. BROWN, J., not participating. Chariell Ali Glaze, pro se appellant. No response. 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.