From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodard v. Lindsay

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Feb 8, 2018
2018 Ark. 40 (Ark. 2018)

Opinion

No. CR-17-857

02-08-2018

BART WOODARD PETITIONER v. HONORABLE MARK LINDSAY, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT


PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
[WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 72CR-11-1271] AMENDED RESPONSE REQUESTED. ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice

On October 17, 2017, petitioner Bart Woodard filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, contending that Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay had not acted in a timely manner on his pro se petition for reduction of sentenced filed in the Washington County Circuit Court on December 16, 2015. Judge Lindsay filed a response to the mandamus petition to which was appended a copy of an order entered October 11, 2017, that had disposed of the petition to correct sentence.

There was no reference in the response to the delay of approximately twenty-two months in acting on the petition. As it is not clear what circumstances caused the lengthy delay in acting on the petition, we direct the respondent to file an amended response within ten days setting out the reasons for the delay.

Amended response requested.


Summaries of

Woodard v. Lindsay

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Feb 8, 2018
2018 Ark. 40 (Ark. 2018)
Case details for

Woodard v. Lindsay

Case Details

Full title:BART WOODARD PETITIONER v. HONORABLE MARK LINDSAY, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT

Court:SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Date published: Feb 8, 2018

Citations

2018 Ark. 40 (Ark. 2018)

Citing Cases

Woodard v. Lindsay

Because there was no reference in the response to the delay of approximately twenty-two months in acting on…