Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

Cite as 2009 Ark. 348 (unpublished) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 09-464 Opinion Delivered June 4, 2009 BRIAN D. HIGGINS Petitioner PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, CR 94-104, v. CR 92-273] HON. L.T. SIMES, II, CIRCUIT JUDGE PETITION DENIED Respondent PER CURIAM On May 1, 2009, petitioner Brian H. Higgins filed the instant pro se petition for writ of mandamus that concerns a petition to correct sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated ยง16-90-111 (Supp. 2003) filed by petitioner in 2005 in the Circuit Court of St. Francis County, a part of the First Judicial Circuit. Petitioner asserts that the petition to correct sentence was assigned to Judge Harvey Yates and that Judge Yates held a hearing on it and granted the petition, but no order was ever entered reflecting the ruling. He now seeks a writ to compel the Honorable L.T. Simes, Circuit Judge, to order a transcript of the hearing to โ€œconfirm the orderโ€ or hold a second hearing on the petition and release him from custody. Judge Simes responded to the mandamus petition, noting that Judge Yates retired from the bench on December 31, 2008, and averring that petitionerโ€™s case has not been assigned
Cite as 2009 Ark. 348 (unpublished) to his court. As the petition is not assigned to him, he asks that this court deny the petition inasmuch as he is not the proper respondent. 1 It is the responsibility of the petitioner to name the correct respondent in a mandamus action. As Judge Simes has informed this court that the petition to correct sentence was not assigned to his court, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Petition denied. 1 Petitioner tendered a response to the response filed by Judge Simes in which he contends that Judge Simes is the only circuit judge assigned to the court in which his petition to correct sentence was filed. There are, however, four other judges sitting in the First Judicial Circuit. 2
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.