Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of James Murray’s petition for relief in the nature of mandamus. The court held that mandamus was unavailable to compel discretionary acts by the Attorney General or the Appellate Division and noted that the statutory finality of the Appellate Division’s decision further limited review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether relief in the nature of mandamus could compel the Attorney General and the Appellate Division to perform the requested acts concerning reinstatement of Murray's sentence appeal.
- Whether the Appellate Division's dismissal of the sentence appeal could be reviewed or undone despite G. L. c. 278, § 28B's provision that its decision is final.
- Whether the single justice erred in denying Murray's petition for extraordinary relief.
Holdings
- Mandamus relief was unavailable because Murray sought to compel discretionary acts by the Attorney General and the Appellate Division, rather than ministerial acts.
- Even if the requested act were ministerial, extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus could be granted only to prevent a failure of justice where no other adequate remedy existed.
- The Appellate Division's decision was not subject to the requested extraordinary review because G. L. c. 278, § 28B expressly states that its decision is final, and the court rarely uses its superintendence power to review matters subject to such an express finality provision.
- The single justice did not err in denying Murray's petition for extraordinary relief.
Key quotations
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is extraordinary, and is granted in the discretion of the court where no other relief is available.” (447 Mass. 1010)
“Relief in the nature of mandamus is not appropriate to compel performance of discretionary acts.” (447 Mass. 1010)
“Rarely should we employ our superintendence power to review rulings in matters in which the Legislature has expressly stated that the decision of another court or judge ‘shall be final.’” (447 Mass. 1010)
Factual background
In 1982, Murray was convicted of escape and armed robbery and received sentences consecutive to a sentence he was then serving in the District of Columbia. He apparently appealed the sentences to the Superior Court's Appellate Division, which dismissed the appeal in 1990. Murray later sought mandamus to compel the Attorney General and the Appellate Division to seek and effect reinstatement of that appeal, but he supplied no documentation establishing that mandamus relief was warranted.
Procedural history
Murray was convicted of escape and armed robbery in 1982, and his sentences were ordered to run after a sentence he was serving in the District of Columbia. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court apparently dismissed his sentence appeal in 1990. In 2005, Murray filed a mandamus petition in the county court seeking reinstatement of the appeal and other relief. The single justice denied the petition, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.