Quake Howard Lewellyn v. State of Arkansas and Category Six Originals Fourteen LLC ( 2024 )

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 479ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-23-434
QUAKE HOWARD LEWELLYN Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LAWRENCE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 38CR-21-136]
STATE OF ARKANSAS AND HONORABLE ROB RATTON, JUDGE
CATEGORY SIX ORIGINALS
FOURTEEN LLC DISMISSED
APPELLEES
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Quake Howard Lewellyn appeals the Lawrence County Circuit Court order granting
Category Six Originals’ (Category 6) request for intervenor access to sealed court documents.
We dismiss the case as moot.
I. Relevant Facts
In October 2020, Lewellyn was charged with kidnapping, capital murder, and other
crimes regarding the death of Sydney Sutherland. In October 2021, Lewellyn pleaded guilty
to capital murder and rape, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On
November 2, 2021, the circuit court entered an order sealing the entire investigative file for
38CR-21-136, State of Arkansas v. Quake Howard Lewellyn “except documentary reports and
written findings.”
On October 6, 2022, Category 6 requested the investigative file for 38CR-21-136,
pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The circuit court initially
denied the FOIA request, finding that the investigative file was sealed and not subject to
FOIA.
On December 7, Category 6 filed a motion for limited intervention, access to sealed
court documents, and other relief. Category 6 explained in the motion that it produced
television specials for the A&E Network, and Category 6 planned to make a special regarding
Sydney Sutherland’s murder. Category 6 stated that Sydney’s family had given its permission
to have access to the investigative file, and there is both a common-law and First Amendment
right to have access to the sealed information.
On December 29, Lewellyn responded that Category 6 had cited no relevant authority
supporting its contention that it had a right to intervene, and Category 6 was “merely a
corporation set out to gain from exploiting the facts of this case.” Moreover, Lewellyn
claimed, Category 6 was not compliant with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 24, and there
was no statute confirming any right to intervene on the basis of these circumstances.
On February 10, 2023, the circuit court granted Category 6’s motion to intervene.
On March 7, the circuit court entered an order vacating the order to seal the investigative
file and granted Category 6’s request for access to certain photographs taken during the
investigation, audio and video recordings of Lewellyn’s and others’ police interviews, GPS
data, surveillance and Ring camera footage, the autopsy report, social media data, and cell
phone data.
2
Lewellyn timely filed his notice of appeal, and this appeal followed. On appeal,
Lewellyn argues that the circuit court erred in granting Category 6’s motion to intervene
because the motion was not timely and because Category 6 did not prove a legal or justifiable
reason that it is entitled to the documents requested. Lewellyn’s appeal is moot.
II. Discussion
Category 6 explains that reversing the circuit court’s order granting intervention and
vacating the order granting Category 6 access to specific documents would have no “practical
effect” because Category 6 has already had access to the investigative files. We agree.
As a general rule, our appellate courts will not review issues that are moot. See Terry
v. White, 374 Ark. 387, 391, 288 S.W.3d 199, 202 (2008). To do so would be to render
advisory opinions, which we will not do. Id. A case is moot when any judgment rendered
would not have any practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Id. In other
words, a moot case presents no justiciable issue for determination by the court. Id.The information sought in Category 6’s FOIA request was released and used for the
purpose it was intended; accordingly, there is no live controversy for this court to resolve,
and the case is moot.
Moreover, the exceptions to the mootness doctrine do not apply here. Our appellate
courts have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: matters capable of
repetition yet evading review and matters of substantial public interest likely to be litigated
in the future. See Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3, 566 S.W.3d 105,
108. An issue capable of repetition yet evading review arises when the justiciable controversy
3
will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication. See Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201,
203, 890 S.W.2d 271, 272 (1995). The other exception applies when considerations of
substantial public interest or the prevention of future litigation are present. See Duhon v.
Gravett, 302 Ark. 358, 360, 790 S.W.2d 155, 156 (1990). This court has the authority to
decide whether to settle an issue that is moot, and we do not improvidently utilize either
exception. See Protect Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3, 566 S.W.3d at 108. Category 6 asserts
in its brief that “[n]othing stopped Mr. Lewellyn from seeking a stay pending appeal of the
order granting Category 6 access to investigative files. In other words, should this type of
issue arise in the future, it would not evade review.” We agree. Future respondents to a
motion to intervene can use the available court process to attempt to prevent the
intervention, and any potential substantial public interest may be addressed at that time. We
dismiss the case as moot.
Dismissed.
GLADWIN and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Josh Q. Hurst, for appellant.
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull, PLLC, by: John E. Tull III and Glenn Larkin, for separate
appellee Category 6 Originals Fourteen LLC.
4