From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Sep 16, 2021
2021 Ark. 156 (Ark. 2021)

Opinion

CR-21-59

09-16-2021

JEREMY TURNER PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

Jeremy Turner, pro se petitioner. Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.


PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 14CR-10-38]

Jeremy Turner, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.

RHONDA K. WOOD, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

Jeremy Turner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the Columbia County circuit court had failed to timely rule on his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016). Because the circuit court has ruled and granted Turner relief, we find the petition moot.

After initial review of the writ, this court entered a per curiam order directing the State of Arkansas to respond to the petition. The State responded and explained that the circuit court judge, Honorable David W. Talley, Jr., had recused from Turner's case because he had represented Turner in the criminal case and that an alternate judge had not been assigned to the matter.

Following the State's response, this court ordered the State to supplement the record. The supplemental record reflects that the newly assigned circuit court judge granted Turner relief on his petition and ordered that an amended sentencing order be issued. As the circuit court has acted, the mandamus action is moot. Roberts v. Chandler, 2015 Ark. 47 (per curiam).

Petition moot.


Summaries of

Turner v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Sep 16, 2021
2021 Ark. 156 (Ark. 2021)
Case details for

Turner v. State

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY TURNER PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Sep 16, 2021

Citations

2021 Ark. 156 (Ark. 2021)