56 V.I. 313
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Morton filed a mandamus petition (Dec. 22, 2011) and moved to appoint DiRuzzo as counsel nunc pro tunc (Jan. 13, 2012) regarding a Superior Court criminal matter.
- Underlying case began March 26, 2010, charging Morton and two codefendants with first-degree murder; DiRuzzo was appointed to represent Morton.
- DiRuzzo moved (Aug. 9, 2011) that the Territory pay constitutionally adequate fees for defense counsel, arguing the current fee system violated the Sixth Amendment.
- Superior Court denied the motion (Sept. 2–6, 2011) and severed the fee-constitutional issue from the criminal case; indicated party to pursue a separate action.
- This Court denied mandamus relief and denied appointment of counsel, holding no sovereign right to counsel in this civil mandamus context and no clear ministerial duty breached by the Nominal Respondent.
- The Court noted possible mootness due to changes in the compensation statute and suggested ordinary post-judgment or civil action avenues for merits relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus lies to compel a legally correct ruling on the August 9, 2011 motion. | Morton argues Nominal Respondent failed to rule on the motion. | Nominal Respondent did issue a ruling severing the issue; mandamus improper to compel merits. | Denied; no clear ministerial duty breached; mandamus not appropriate. |
| Whether the Court should appoint counsel for Morton in the mandamus proceeding. | Morton seeks DiRuzzo appointed nunc pro tunc under Rule 210.2(d) or quasi-criminal analysis. | Civil mandamus lacks Sixth Amendment right to counsel; no basis to appoint DiRuzzo. | Denied; no right to counsel in civil mandamus and appointment not in interests of justice. |
| Whether Rule 210.3(a) or other rules require treating this proceeding as quasi-criminal to justify appointment. | Rule 210.2(a) or 210.2(d) authorize appointment; action quasi-criminal due to underlying case. | Proceeding is civil; Sixth Amendment not implicated; no appointment required. | Denied; not quasi-criminal; appointment not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Le Blanc, 49 V.I. 508 (V.I. 2008) (mandamus standard and ministerial duty considerations)
- Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 51 V.I. 341 (V.I. 2009) (indigent civil litigants have no right to counsel; but court may appoint in certain matters)
- Martinez v. Ct. of Appeals of California, 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. 2000) (Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an appellate right to counsel in all proceedings)
- United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2006) (equal protection concerns for initial appeal of criminal convictions warrant counsel in some contexts)
- Doherty v. Caisley, 104 Ill. 2d 72 (Ill. 1984) (indigent civil litigants have no constitutional right to appointed counsel)