LAW.coLAW.co

IN RE: Franklin C. SMITH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-13No. No. 21-1620

Summary

Holding. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Franklin C. Smith sought a writ of mandamus to compel the recall of a warrant and dismissal of petit larceny charges against him. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a petitioner has a clear entitlement to the relief and lacks any alternative adequate remedy. The court found that the relief Smith requested was not appropriately pursued through mandamus.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to challenge a warrant
  • Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal of criminal charges
  • Whether petitioner had a clear right to the relief sought

Procedural posture

Smith petitioned for a writ of mandamus in this appellate court seeking recall of a warrant and dismissal of state petit larceny charges.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Franklin C. Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the recall of a warrant and the dismissal of state petit larceny charges. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

PER CURIAM:

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.