Paige v. State (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 413 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 12-869 Opinion Delivered CORNELIOUS PAIGE PETITIONER November 1, 2012 PRO SE MOTION FOR PERMISSION [FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 07-515] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS AND HON. DAVID L. REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENTS MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED. PER CURIAM On October 10, 2012, petitioner Cornelious Paige tendered to this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus that named the Honorable David L. Reynolds, Circuit Judge, as respondent. Received with the petition was the pro se Motion for Permission, now before us, in which petitioner seeks leave to file the mandamus petition without the certified record required to file such a petition. Petitioner contends that he has been unable to obtain the certified record from the circuit court and that there are serious constitutional issues and rights that must be addressed by this court. We treat the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to file the tendered mandamus petition without a certified record. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-1(a) (2012) provides that in cases in which the jurisdiction of this court is in fact appellate, although in form original, such as petitions for writs of prohibition, certiorari, or mandamus, the pleadings with certified exhibits from the trial court are treated as the record. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-1(a); Wright v. Griffen, 2012 Ark. 313 (per curiam); Williams v. Helena Reg l Med. Ctr., 2012 Ark. 126 (per curiam); Barnett v. Tabor, 2010 Ark. 22 (per Cite as 2012 Ark. 413 curiam); Davis v. Dennis, 2009 Ark. 474 (per curiam); Dillard v. Keith, 336 Ark. 521, 986 S.W.2d 100 (1999) (per curiam). This court thus cannot assume jurisdiction of the petition for writ of mandamus tendered by petitioner without a certified record. Accordingly, the motion to proceed without a certified record is denied. Motion treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied. Cornelious Paige, 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.