Khalifa v. State (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Supreme Court to compel the circuit court to conduct a hearing on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to issuance of the writ.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. Petitioner later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State withheld certain evidence held by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. Petitioner then brought this petition asking that the circuit court be compelled to conduct a hearing on his habeas petition. The Supreme Court denied the writ, noting that a hearing is not required on a habeas petition.

Download PDF
Cite as 2021 Ark. 109 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-21-60 Opinion Delivered: May 13, 2021 TY-KWAH KHALIFA/MICHAEL PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MULDROW MANDAMUS PETITIONER [HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 29CR-12-257] V. PETITION DENIED. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice Petitioner Ty-Kwah Khalifa, who is also known as Michael Muldrow, brings this pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the circuit court to conduct a hearing on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016). Because Khalifa fails to demonstrate entitlement to issuance of the writ, it is denied. Khalifa pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment by order entered on August 5, 2013. On August 26, 2020, Khalifa filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that the State withheld certain evidence held by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. Khalifa does not ask for a ruling on his habeas petition but instead asks that the circuit court be compelled to conduct a hearing on it. The purpose of a writ of mandamus is to enforce an established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Martz v. Felts, 2019 Ark. 297, 585 S.W.3d 675. A writ of mandamus will not lie to control or review matters of discretion. Id. Issuance of the writ of mandamus is appropriate only when the duty to be compelled is ministerial and not discretionary. Parker v. Crow, 2010 Ark. 371, 368 S.W.3d 902. Mandamus will compel a court to act when it should act, but it will not be used to tell the court how to decide a judicial question. Williams v. Porch, 2018 Ark. 1, 534 S.W.3d 152. A hearing is not required on a habeas petition—even when the petition alleges an otherwise cognizable ground—when probable cause for the issuance of the writ is not shown by affidavit or other evidence. Jackson v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 255, 602 S.W.3d 743. Our statutory scheme does not mandate a hearing on a habeas petition regardless of the allegations contained in it. Noble v. State, 2019 Ark. 284, 585 S.W.3d 671. In sum, holding a hearing on a habeas petition is not a ministerial duty but is a discretionary decision with the circuit court based on its analysis of the allegations and evidence presented by the petition. Petition denied. Ty-Kwah Khalifa, pro se petitioner. 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.