Glaze v. Reynolds (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Petitioner filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and an application for writ of prohibition, both of which referenced two criminal cases filed against him in the circuit court. The petition sought to have the Court compel Respondent, the circuit judge, to act on multiple pleadings filed in the two cases. The application for writ of prohibition sought to compel dismissal of one of the two cases on allegations of a speedy-trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) denied in part the petition for mandamus, as the record did not contain the motions Petitioner contended remained outstanding, and requested an amended response in part; and (2) denied the application for writ of prohibition, as Petitioner did not bring an adequate record to support his claim that he filed a motion to dismiss.

Download PDF

Cite as 2013 Ark. 43 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 12-433 Opinion Delivered February CHARIELL ALI GLAZE PETITIONER 7, 2013 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 23CR 09-454] V. HON. DAVID REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT PETITION MOOT. 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). In Judge Reynolds s initial response, he provided orders that he contended disposed of the pleadings. In our previous opinion, we explained that the orders provided with the response did not dispose of some of the pleadings that were at issue because the orders were invalid. Id. This court had, on direct appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction and reversed and remanded in part, ordering resentencing. Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464, ___ S.W.3d ___. The orders provided in the response were based upon a negotiated plea agreement, but, because petitioner s conviction had been affirmed, no plea could be entered on the charges. Both the Cite as 2013 Ark. 43 resentencing order in CR 09-454 and the order entered in another case were therefore invalid. Reynolds, 2012 Ark. 330, at 2 3. We directed Judge Reynolds to provide an amended response concerning the pro se pleadings that petitioner had filed in CR 09-454, and we received an amended response, in which Judge Reynolds indicated that the request for mandamus had been made moot. The response was based upon an apparent misconception concerning our previous opinion, in that the response treated a May 8, 2012 order in CR 09-454 as valid, despite our holding to the contrary. We remanded for entry of a sentencing order reflecting an appropriate disposition in CR 09-454 and held petitioner s request for mandamus relief in abeyance pending receipt of documentation of compliance with our order. Glaze v. Reynolds, 2012 Ark. 434 (per curiam). Judge Reynolds has provided a new response in this case to which he attaches an amended sentencing order entered on December 11, 2012. Because the documentation attached to Judge Reynold s latest response does show that a new resentencing order has been entered in CR 09-454, the judgment in that case is now final, and any underlying motions, including petitioner s pro se pleadings that were the remaining subject of his mandamus petition at issue, have effectively received a disposition. Petitioner s request for mandamus relief in regard to those claims is therefore now moot. See Nelson v. Glover, 2012 Ark. 307 (per curiam) (where a circuit court has acted on the underlying petition, a petition for writ of mandamus is moot); McCullough v. Hill, 2010 Ark. 391 (per curiam); Bowers v. Laser, 2010 Ark. 348 (per curiam); Stephenson v. Humphrey, 2010 Ark. 215 (per curiam); McCoy v. Pope, 2010 Ark. 183 (per curiam); Wells v. Philhours, 2010 Ark. 182 (per curiam); White v. Glover, 2010 Ark. 166 (per curiam); Camp 2 Cite as 2013 Ark. 43 v. Yeargan, 2010 Ark. 160 (per curiam); Strong v. Thyer, 2010 Ark. 19 (per curiam). Petition moot. Chariell Ali Glaze, pro se petitioner. No response. 3

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.