McClinton v. State ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. 217
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-15-255
Opinion Delivered May 14, 2015
EDMOND McCLINTON PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PETITIONER MANDAMUS
[LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT
V. COURT, NO. 40CV-14-67]
JODI RAINES DENNIS, CIRCUIT
JUDGE PETITION DISMISSED.
RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM
On April 2, 2015, Edmond McClinton filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.
The petition pertains to a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by McClinton in the
Lincoln County Circuit Court on October 1, 2014. McClinton does not allege that the
respondent, the Honorable Jodi Raines Dennis, Circuit Judge, has not acted in a timely manner
on the habeas petition. Rather, he argues that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was
meritorious and asks that this court release him from custody on the grounds raised in the
habeas petition.
Judge Dennis timely filed a response to the mandamus petition to which was appended
a copy of her order entered January 20, 2015, dismissing the habeas petition. As the habeas
petition was acted on approximately two months before the instant mandamus action was filed
here and the order indicates that a copy of the order was provided to McClinton, it appears that
McClinton is seeking to have this court grant the relief that the circuit court declined to grant
Cite as 2015 Ark. 217
in its order.
The purpose of a writ of mandamus in a civil or a criminal case is to enforce an
established right or to enforce the performance of a duty. Parker v. Crow, 2010 Ark. 371, 368
S.W.3d 902. Mandamus will not lie to grant a writ of habeas corpus, and the proper means of
seeking review of the denial of a habeas petition is by appeal. See In re Review of Habeas Corpus
Proceedings, 313 Ark. 168, 169, 852 S.W.2d 791, 791 (1993) (per curiam). A mandamus action in
this court is not a substitute for an appeal from a habeas order. Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745
S.W.2d 129 (1988). Accordingly, if McClinton desired to challenge the order entered by the
circuit court in this matter, his remedy was to file a timely notice of appeal and proceed to
perfect an appeal to this court in accordance with the prevailing rules of procedure. This court
will not issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner had the adequate remedy of seeking
review by appeal. Burney v. Hargraves, 264 Ark. 680, 573 S.W.3d 912 (1978).
A writ of mandamus is issued by this court only to compel an official or judge to take
some action. Stanley v. Ligon, 374 Ark. 6, 9, 285 S.W.3d 649, 652 (2008). Mandamus cannot be
used to correct a decision already made. Id. Because McClinton is seeking relief outside the
scope of a mandamus proceeding, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
2