2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-4-2010

In Re: Johnny Martinez

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3708

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Johnny Martinez " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 296.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/296
CLD-024 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3708

___________

IN RE: JOHNNY MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands

(Related to Civ. No. 05-cv-00052)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

October 28, 2010

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 4, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Johnny Martinez petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Appellate Division 

of the District Court for the Virgin Islands to act on his motion for a certificate of 

probable cause which is pending before the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. For the 

reasons below, we will deny the petition.

Martinez pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the Territorial Court of the 

Virgin Islands and is serving a sentence of forty-five years in prison. In 2004, Martinez 
2

filed a habeas petition in the Territorial Court in which he argued that (1) the seconddegree murder statute was unconstitutionally vague; (2) his rights to due process and 

equal protection were violated because other murder defendants received shorter 

sentences; and (3) the sentencing judge failed to recuse herself. The Territorial Court, 

now known as the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, denied the habeas petition in 

October 2004 and a motion to reconsider in January 2005. 

Martinez appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands which remanded the matter to the Superior Court to determine whether a 

certificate of probable cause should issue. In December 2005, the Superior Court 

declared that it did not have to comply with the rule requiring it to issue a certificate of 

probable cause or state the reasons why one should not issue. In February 2008, the 

Appellate Division remanded the matter to the presiding judge of the Superior Court to 

determine whether a certificate of probable cause should issue. In June 2010, Martinez 

filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Superior Court requesting it to act on his 

request for a certificate of probable cause. On August 16, 2010, a Magistrate of the 

Superior Court recommended that a certificate of probable cause be denied, and Martinez 

subsequently filed objections to the Magistrate’s recommendation. On August 23, 2010, 

Martinez filed his petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court.

A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. See

Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Determining whether an extraordinary 

circumstance exists requires a two-part inquiry. First, it must be established that there is 
3

no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief. Second, a petitioner must 

demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States 

District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Generally, mandamus relief is used to “confine 

an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to 

exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 

U.S. 21, 26 (1943). 

While there has been a lengthy delay in the Superior Court proceedings since the 

matter was remanded in February 2008, the Magistrate recently recommended that 

Martinez’s request for a certificate of probable cause be denied. The delay has not risen 

to the level of an extraordinary circumstance such that the Appellate Division of the 

District Court has a duty to interfere in the Superior Court’s resolution of Martinez’s 

pending request for a certificate of probable cause. We are confident that the Superior 

Court will resolve the request in a timely fashion. 

For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.