Johnny Weaver, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of West Helena, Arkansas v. City of West Helena, Eddie Lee, Nathan Ashwood, Edward Joshaway, James Parks, Calvin Holden, and Clarence Richardson, in their official capacity as West Helena City Councilmen, and Vincent Bell, West Helena Chief of Police

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Johnny WEAVER, in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the  City of West Helena, Arkansas v. CITY OF WEST HELENA,  Eddie Lee, Nathan Ashwood, Edward Joshaway, James Parks,  Calvin Holden, and Clarence Richardson, in their Official  Capacity as West Helena City Councilmen, and Vincent Bell,  West Helena Chief of Police  05­580  ___ S.W.3d ___  Supreme Court of Arkansas  Opinion delivered June 29, 2006  1.  APPEAL AND ERROR  – POINTS  ON  APPEAL WERE MOOT, WITH EXCEPTION OF ONE. –  Because the particular governmental positions and relationships at issue were extinct,  and because the supreme court’s decision would have had no practical effect on the  legal controversy, the supreme court concluded that the points on appeal raised by the  appellant, with the exception of the Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 issue, were moot.  2.  ATTORNEY AND CLIENT – ARK. R. CIV. P. 11 – SANCTIONS UNWARRANTED. – Where  the  circuit  court  disregarded  the  procedural  requirements  for  the  imposition  of  sanctions under Ark. R. Civ. P. 11, where the appellant was subjected to a de facto  Rule 11 hearing of which he was given no notice, where the hearing occurred before  the circuit court attempted to establish the falsity of the  allegations in appellant’s  motion  for  recusal,  where  the  circuit  court  ultimately  failed  to  establish  that  the ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 2  allegations were false, and where the circuit court relied on improper bases in the  order imposing sanctions, the supreme court concluded that the circuit court abused  its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on the appellant.  Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; L.T. Simes II, Judge; moot in part; reversed in  part.  Murray Law Firm, by:  Todd H. Murray, for appellant.  No response.  BETTY C. DICKEY, Justice.  Johnny Weaver, former mayor of West Helena, appeals  the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Phillips County Circuit Judge L.T. Simes  on January 3, 2005, restraining Weaver from interfering in the day­to­day operations of the  West Helena Police Department and reinstating Vincent Bell as that city’s chief of police.  Weaver additionally appeals Judge Simes’s refusal to recuse from the case, his removal of  Weaver  from the  courtroom during a  hearing,  and  his  imposition  of  Ark.  R.  Civ.  P.  11  sanctions on Weaver and his attorney. We find that all of the points on appeal are moot with  the exception of the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11, and we reverse on that point.  Mayor Weaver fired Vincent Bell in November 2004. The termination was preceded ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 3  by  a  suspension  and  was  confirmed  by  a  decision  of  the  West  Helena  Civil  Service  Commission on November 23, 2004. Bell filed a notice of appeal in the Phillips County  Circuit  Court  on  December  15,  2004,  and  the  case,  numbered  04­398,  was  assigned  to  Circuit Judge Harvey Yates.  The West Helena City Council, in a called meeting on Saturday, January 1, 2005,  declared the seat of alderman Eddie Schieffler vacant, even though Schieffler disputed the  declared vacancy and was present and attempting to vote.  James Parks was elected to fill  Schieffler’s position and voted to reinstate Bell with the 2/3 majority, which the council  maintained  rendered  the  vote  “veto­proof.”  The  council  then  voted  to  abolish  the  Civil  Service Commission.  Weaver subsequently vetoed all measures taken by the city council at  that meeting. The Phillips County Circuit Court later ruled that there had been no vacancy  for Schieffler’s position, that Parks was thus a usurper, and that all actions taken by the city  council at the January 1 meeting were null and void.  On January 3, 2005, Bell, Parks, and five other members of the city council who had  voted to reinstate Bell filed the present case, numbered 05­04, in the Phillips County Circuit  Court, asking Circuit Judge L.T. Simes for a TRO which he granted, reinstating Bell and  restraining Weaver from interfering in the day­to­day operations of the police department.  On January 6, 2005, approximately one hour before the scheduled hearing on the ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 4  TRO, Weaver filed a motion for recusal. The motion alleged that Judge Simes had initiated  an improper ex parte conversation with Weaver asking Weaver to deal leniently with Bell;  owned an interest in a radio station that was going to be paid to air city council meetings; and  had  issued  the  TRO  despite  knowing  that  a  connected  case  was  pending  before  another  judge. A hearing on the motion for recusal was conducted in lieu of the scheduled TRO  hearing, at which time Weaver testified as to the matters contained in the motion for recusal.  In the midst of Weaver’s testimony, Judge Simes called a recess and moved the proceedings  to his chambers. No future hearing was scheduled prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the  remainder of which took place in Judge Simes’s chambers.  The next morning, January 7, 2005, Judge Simes issued an injunction which restrained  the press from reporting what had transpired at the previous day’s hearing. That order was  the subject of our decision in Helena Daily World v. Simes, 365 Ark. 365, ___ S.W.3d ___  (2006).  Judge Simes also issued an order scheduling a hearing on the motion for recusal for  1:00  p.m.  that  day  in  Forrest  City,  Arkansas.  At  that  hearing,  Judge  Simes  arbitrarily  removed Weaver from the courtroom at the outset of the proceedings and then conducted an  inquiry into possible Rule 11 violations by Weaver’s attorney, Todd Murray. Weaver and  Murray were given no notice that possible Rule 11 violations would be considered at the  hearing, and the Rule 11 inquiry was taken up by the court before there had  been a full ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 5  hearing on the merits of the allegations in the motion for recusal. Judge Simes ultimately  declined to recuse.  On January 26, a full hearing on the TRO was conducted by Judge Simes. On April  28, Judge Simes entered an order in which he declined to recuse from the case and imposed  Rule 11 sanctions on Murray and Weaver for filing the motion to recuse for an improper  purpose and without a proper factual foundation. Judge Simes acknowledged the rulings that  invalidated all the actions taken at the January 1, 2005, city council meeting, but he refused  to dissolve the TRO, ruling that the TRO was to be held in abeyance pending further action  by the city council and Mayor Weaver.  Weaver appeals the rulings in the April 28 order, as  well as Judge Simes’s removal of the appellant from the courtroom during the January 7  recusal hearing.  As a general rule, the appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are  moot. Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130, 55 S.W.3d 290 (2001). To do this would be to render  advisory opinions, which we will not do. Id. Generally, a case becomes moot when any  judgment  rendered  would  have  no  practical  legal  effect  upon  a  then­existing  legal  controversy. Id. This court has recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Id. The  first one involves issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review, and the second one  concerns issues that raise issues of substantial public interest, which if addressed, would ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 6  prevent future litigation. Id.  We take judicial notice of the fact that the City of West Helena no longer exists as a  separate legal entity. On January 1, 2006, the adjoining cities of Helena and West Helena  merged to  form  the new city of Helena­West Helena. Thus, the particular governmental  positions and relationships at issue in the present case are extinct, and our decision would  have  no  practical  effect  upon  the  legal  controversy  here.  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  conclude that the points on appeal raised by the appellant, with the exception of the Rule 11  issue which represents an extant monetary obligation, are moot.  The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11  sanctions on his attorney, Todd Murray, and himself.  Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 states in pertinent part:  (a)  The  signature  of  an  attorney  or  party  constitutes  a  certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other  paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief  it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a  good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal  of existing law and that it is not interposed  for any improper  purpose, such as to harass or to cause any unnecessary delay or ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 7  increase in the cost of litigation.  (b) A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made  separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the  specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (a). It shall be  served  as  provided  in  Rule  5  but  shall  not  be  filed  with  or  presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the  motion  (or  such  other  period  as  the  court  may  prescribe)  the  challenged  paper,  claim,  defense,  contention,  allegation,  or  denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.  The imposition of sanctions is a serious matter to be handled with prudence, and the  trial court’s decision is due substantial deference. Williams v. Martin, 335 Ark. 163, 980  S.W.2d 248 (1998). This court reviews a trial court’s determination of whether a violation  of  Rule  11  has  occurred  under  an  abuse­of­discretion  standard.  Ward  v.  Dapper  Dan  Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 309 Ark. 192, 828 S.W.2d 833 (1992). In deciding an appropriate  sanction, trial courts have broad discretion, not only in determining whether sanctionable  conduct has occurred, but also what appropriate sanctions should be. Crockett & Brown v.  Wilson, 321 Ark. 150, 901 S.W.2d 826 (1995). ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 8  In his April 28, 2005, order, Judge Simes ruled that the conduct of Todd Murray in  filing the motion to recuse was sufficient to warrant sanctions under Rule 11 and ordered  Murray and Weaver to pay the fees and costs of the opposing attorneys for their time spent  in opposing the motion. Weaver had earlier advanced three primary allegations in support  of his motion to recuse. First, Weaver alleged that sometime subsequent to his suspension  of Bell, Judge Simes initiated a conversation with Weaver and asked him if anything could  be done to help Bell. Second, Weaver alleged that Judge Simes had an ownership interest in  a radio station with which the city council had made arrangements to make paid  broadcasts  of the city council meetings. Third, Weaver alleged that Judge Simes had issued the TRO  despite knowing that a case was pending before another circuit judge involving the same  subject, which was the possible reinstatement of Bell. On January 13, Weaver withdrew this  last allegation regarding Judge Simes’s knowledge of the other pending case.  Throughout the proceedings, Mayor Weaver consistently maintained that the ex parte  conversation with Judge Simes had occurred. Judge Simes never denied the conversation, and  no other evidence was produced to impeach Weaver’s account of the dialogue. Weaver also  firmly maintained that he had been given reason to believe that an arrangement had existed  whereby the city council would compensate the radio station for its broadcasts of city council  meetings. The appellees called a city councilman, Eddie Lee, who testified that the council ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 9  did not pay the radio station for the broadcasts, and so there was conflicting evidence as to  any payment arrangement between the city council and the radio station.  However, it is  undisputed  that  Judge  Simes  had  an  ownership  interest  in  the  radio  station  and  that  the  station did air the city council meetings. Thus, one of the allegations concerning the ex parte  conversation was not contradicted. Neither of the allegations were conclusively proven to  be false, and such proof should have been a prerequisite to the imposition of any sanctions  under Rule 11.  In  his  order  filed  on  April  28,  2005,  Judge  Simes  relied  on  improper  bases  in  imposing sanctions upon the appellant under Rule 11. Judge Simes stated that the appellant’s  motion for recusal was “an attempt to shop for a judge” and in support of that conclusion,  Judge Simes made the following statement, “When questioned by the court about the judge  shopping issue,  Mr.  Murray  stated,  ‘Yes  sir,  there  is.  I  think  on  both  sides.’  That  is  an  admission.” The more complete exchange was as follows:  THE  COURT:  (interposing)  But,  Mr.  Murray  there  is  an  issue  I’ve  got  to  resolve. I’m not going to presuppose anything, Mr. Murray. My mind is not  made up. It wouldn’t be fair for me to do that, and I’m not going to do that.  There is an issue in this case about judge shopping. ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 10  MURRAY: Yes, sir, there is. I think on both sides. I heard what Mr. Lewellen  said on the record yesterday that he thought there may have been some judge  shopping, and there may well have been some judge shopping on their part.  We weren’t judge shopping. . . .  In the above statement, Murray admits that judge shopping was an issue in the case, but then  states unambiguously that if any judge shopping occurred in the case, it was done by the  appellees, not the appellants. In the order, Judge Simes quotes Murray’s statement out of  context, terms it an admission, and relies on it to support his conclusion that the appellant  filed the motion to recuse in an attempt to “shop” for a judge. Judge Simes’s use of the  statement to support a conclusion inapposite to the statement’s actual import is a significant  misrepresentation. The appellant made no admission that he was judge shopping, and Judge  Simes abused his discretion by sanctioning the appellant on that basis.  Judge Simes also  censured  the  appellant  in  the  order  for  making  the  original  allegation  that  Judge  Simes  entered the TRO despite having knowledge that a case involving the same subject matter was  pending before another judge. This allegation had been properly withdrawn by the appellant  seven  days  after  the  filing  of  the  motion  for  recusal,  and  thus  should  not  have  been  sanctioned under Rule 11. ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 11  There was no separate motion for sanctions made in this case, and such a motion is  required by Rule 11 before sanctions may be imposed. At the January 7 hearing, which was  scheduled as a recusal hearing, Judge Simes immediately began a protracted inquiry into  possible Rule 11 violations by the appellant. The appellant was given no notice that Rule 11  would be addressed at the hearing. Judge Simes had Weaver removed from the courtroom  initially,  and  he  then  conducted  an  intensive  inquiry  into  Murray’s  knowledge  and  application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The examination generally consisted of  Judge Simes reading sizable passages from the rule book aloud, and then questioning Murray  on the extent of his knowledge thereof.  Murray stated that he was familiar with the rules and  had adhered to them in the present case, although he admitted that he could not recite the rule  book verbatim. Weaver was then returned to the courtroom and similarly quizzed, as if he  were an attorney and familiar with the rules. All this occurred prior to any real inquiry into  the veracity of Weaver’s allegations supporting the motion to recuse.  Judge Simes seemed  to presume the falsity of the allegations throughout the proceedings.  In summation, the procedural requirements for the imposition of sanctions under Rule  11 were disregarded by Judge Simes, and the appellant was subjected to a de facto Rule 11  hearing of which he was given no notice. That hearing occurred before the court attempted  to establish the falsity of the allegations in the motion for recusal, and the court ultimately ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6  WEAVER  v. CITY OF WEST HELENA  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 12  failed to establish that the allegations were false. Judge Simes relied on improper bases in  his order imposing the sanctions. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Judge Simes  abused his discretion by imposing sanctions upon the appellant under Rule 11. Based on the  record before us, it appears that Judge Simes has violated the Arkansas Code of Judicial  Conduct. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to forward a copy of this opinion to  the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. See Walls v. State, 341 Ark.  787, 20 S.W.3d 322 (2000).  Moot in part; reversed in part. ___________________________  DICKEY, J. ­ 6 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.