Opinion ID: 2283707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We Decline to Issue a Writ.

Text: [W]hether to grant a writ is always discretionary [13] even when a petitioner for a writ makes the required showings to meet the stringent standard for making writ relief possibly available. [14] Our precedent requires that to be able possibly to obtain a writ for extraordinary reliefsuch as a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamusone must show that: (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted.[ [15] ] But even where a petitioner accomplishes the difficult task of making one of these two alternative showings, the issuance of a writ is not mandatory. [16] And given the magnitude of the issues presented here concerning not only whether particular individuals might be properly executed by the state but also the validity of our state protocol for execution and the inherent difficulties in determining the merits of such issues upon the limited record in a writ case, [17] we will not exercise our discretion to issue a writ here, even assuming that the Petitioners have made the required showings to make a writ available. We certainly recognize that some view any delay in carrying out the death sentences of Wilson and other death-row inmates as an injury and an injustice to the Commonwealth, but we also believe that granting the requested writ would not further Commonwealth's officers' efforts to meet obligations to comply with the law in administering the death penalty. In short, we do not believe it would be in the public interest to grant the relief requested by the Petitioners in this writ proceeding. The Petitioners request not only that this Court dissolve the temporary injunction staying Wilson's execution but also that this Court prohibit the Franklin Circuit Court from entering any orders concerning matters already determined by the Kenton Circuit Court or that are pending before this Court and order the Franklin Circuit Court to dismiss the death-row inmates' declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the execution protocol. We do not believe our issuing a writ to interfere with the Franklin Circuit's Court's control of the case in this manner would be in the public interest. We recognized the important public interest in establishing a valid execution protocol in Bowling v. Kentucky Department of Corrections and will not order the Franklin Circuit court to dismiss the declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of this protocol. And we discern no reason to enter an order limiting what matters may be considered by the Franklin Circuit Court, especially because it appears to us that the Franklin Circuit Court properly focused its attention on the validity of the execution protocol. [18] Any possible over-stepping into areas more properly determined by other courts can be corrected on appeal of the final judgment ultimately entered in the declaratory judgment action. Although we recognize the Commonwealth's concern over delays in carrying out its sentences, the stay of execution entered by the Franklin Circuit Court is of little practical effect now because Wilson's death warrant has expired; and we are aware of none others pending. We also recognize that the temporary injunction essentially forbids the Commonwealth from performing any more executions until the Franklin Circuit Court enters final judgment in the declaratory judgment action, so we are not proclaiming that the matter is totally moot. Furthermore, Wilson's appeal of a Kenton Circuit Court order denying him relief is currently pending before this Court. We believe that especially in the absence of any pending execution warrantthe wisest course is simply to allow the current litigation to proceed. This includes the Franklin Circuit Court declaratory judgment action and Wilson's appeal of the Kenton Circuit Court's order.