ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 08-85
WILLIAM GREG SMITH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
February 28, 2007
PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI
[CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND
COUNTY, CR 2004-270, HON. JOHN
H. WRIGHT, JUDGE]
A jury found petitioner William Greg Smith guilty of engaging children in sexually explicit
conduct for use in visual or print medium and sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment in the
ArkansasDepartment ofCorrection. This court affirmed the judgment. Smith v. State, 363 Ark. 456,
215 S.W.3d 626 (2005). Petitioner filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief
under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 that was denied. This court dismissed petitioner’s appeal of that order.
Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 611, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam).
In 2007, petitioner filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and, on a later
date, a petition for declaratory judgment. Both petitions were denied. Petitioner did not appeal those
orders. He now brings in this court a petition for writ of mandamus and, either additionally or
alternatively, certiorari. Petitioner alleges that the trialcourt committed anumber of errors concerning
his petitions and he requests this court review his petition for habeas corpus relief and direct the trial
court to “process” his petition for declaratory judgment.
Petitioner contends that the State did not respond to his petitions for writ of habeas corpus
and declaratory judgment and asserts that this failure should have prevented the trial court from
considering his petitions. Petitioner appears to mistakenly believe that the State’s failure to respond
somehow prevented him frombringing an appeal of the trial court’s orders denying the two petitions.
He cites no authority for, and does not explain, that position, merely contending that the petitions
were therefore “unripe” for appellate review. We will not consider an argument without authorit