Roberts v. Talley (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. 265 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-1089 Opinion Delivered June 4, 2015 DERRICK ROBERTS PETITIONER V. HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 14CR-09-113] PETITION MOOT. PER CURIAM Petitioner Derrick Roberts first filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on December 17, 2014. Roberts had filed in the Columbia County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis on January 14, 2014. In the mandamus petition, Roberts sought to have Circuit Judge Larry Chandler enter a final order on the coram-nobis petition. On February 12, 2015, this court held that the mandamus action was moot because Judge Chandler retired from the bench, and the coram-nobis petition was reassigned. Roberts v. Chandler, 2015 Ark. 47 (per curiam). Roberts filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus naming Circuit Judge David W. Talley, Jr., as the respondent. That amended petition is now before us. Judge Talley provided this court a copy of an order transferring the matter to Circuit Judge Hamilton H. Singleton. Because the respondent, as of the date of this opinion, is no longer responsible for acting on Roberts’s pending pleading, the amended petition for writ of mandamus is also moot. See Standridge v. Putman, 2014 Ark. 208 (per curiam). We again note that Roberts’s coram-nobis petition has been pending for more than one Cite as 2015 Ark. 265 year and urge that the matter be disposed of promptly. The prompt resolution of all matters before a court is vital to the administration of justice. McNichols v. Elmore, 2014 Ark. 133 (per curiam). Petition moot. 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.
