As there was no explanation in the State's response to the mandamus petition or in the court's order on the motion for the almost three-year delay in acting on the initial motion, we asked the respondent to file an amended response explaining the failure to act on the motions in a timely manner. Smith v. Maggio, CR 05-260 (Ark. May 5, 2005) ( per curiam.) The amended response explained that in the Twentieth Judicial District, a judge was not made aware of the filing of a pleading until the petitioner contacted the judge's case coordinator and made a formal request for a hearing.