Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts dismissed Arthur Burnham’s complaint seeking relief in the nature of mandamus concerning postconviction motions, appointment of counsel, disability accommodations, and alleged inaction by the Superior Court. The court held that mandamus could not substitute for ordinary appellate review and could not compel a judicial officer to exercise discretion in a particular manner.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandamus was available when Burnham could seek relief in the Superior Court and, if necessary, through an ordinary appeal.
- Whether mandamus could be used to obtain review, reversal, or direction of discretionary decisions by Superior Court judges.
- Whether the Supreme Judicial Court should reach Burnham's requests concerning counsel and disability accommodations in the mandamus proceeding.
Holdings
- Mandamus relief was unavailable because Burnham failed to show that the available Superior Court and appellate procedures were inadequate.
- Mandamus could not issue to direct a judicial officer to make a particular decision or to review or reverse a decision on an issue properly before that officer.
Key quotations
“It would be hard to find any principle more fully established in our practice than the principle that neither mandamus nor certiorari is to be used as a substitute for ordinary appellate procedure or used at any time when there is another adequate remedy.” (slip op. at 2)
“A complaint in the nature of mandamus is limited to requiring a public official to perform a 'clear cut duty,' as opposed to requiring the exercise of discretion in a particular way.” (slip op. at 2)
“mandamus will not issue to direct a judicial officer to make a particular decision or to review, or reverse, a decision made by a judicial officer on an issue properly before him or her.” (slip op. at 2)
Factual background
Burnham sought to withdraw his guilty plea in a Superior Court criminal proceeding and requested appointment of counsel and other accommodations, including accommodations allegedly required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also alleged inaction or misconduct by the Superior Court and sought a speedy remedy through a mandamus complaint in the Supreme Judicial Court. His motion to withdraw the plea was subsequently denied, and he appealed that denial.
Procedural history
Burnham's motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) was pending when he filed the mandamus complaint. The Superior Court later denied the motion, and Burnham filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the mandamus complaint because ordinary avenues of relief were available and the requested relief concerned discretionary judicial decisions.