Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of a petition for relief in the nature of mandamus seeking appointment of counsel to assist with a postconviction motion for a new trial. The court held that neither the Constitution nor statute imposed a clear duty on the Committee for Public Counsel Services or the trial judge to appoint counsel in these circumstances, and that adequate alternative remedies were available.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandamus could compel the Committee for Public Counsel Services to appoint counsel for preparation or presentation of a postconviction motion for a new trial.
- Whether mandamus could compel the trial judge to appoint counsel.
- Whether extraordinary relief was unavailable because Ardon had adequate alternative remedies.
- Whether the court should address arguments not properly raised before the single justice.
Holdings
- Mandamus was not proper because Ardon had no constitutional or statutory entitlement to appointed counsel for preparing or presenting a postconviction motion for a new trial, and CPCS therefore had no clear legal duty to appoint counsel in those circumstances.
- Mandamus was unavailable to direct the trial judge to appoint counsel because mandamus cannot direct a judicial officer to make a particular decision or to review or reverse a decision properly before that officer.
- Extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus was independently unwarranted because Ardon failed to demonstrate the absence of adequate alternative remedies.
- The court declined to address additional issues and arguments that were not properly raised before the single justice.
Key quotations
“Because there is no “clear cut duty” to appoint counsel in this situation, Montefusco v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 1015, 1015 (2008), mandamus is not proper; mandamus cannot be used to compel a public agency to perform a discretionary act.” (464 Mass. at 1001)
“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.”” (464 Mass. at 1002)
Factual background
Ardon was convicted of murder in the first degree and sought appointment of counsel to prepare or present a postconviction motion for a new trial. He asked the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the trial judge to appoint counsel. The court concluded that neither CPCS nor the trial judge had a clear, nondiscretionary duty to provide the requested appointment and that Ardon had an adequate potential remedy through the gatekeeper procedure applicable to first-degree murder convictions.
Procedural history
Ardon sought extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus. The single justice declined to issue the writ, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The court also noted that Ardon had not properly raised additional issues before the single justice.