Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-3-2007
In Re: Robinson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5107
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Robinson " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1137.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1137
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5107
________________
IN RE: RUSSELL ROBINSON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District of the Virgin Islands
(Related to Civ. No. 04-cr-00005-02)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 19, 2007
BEFORE: MCKEE, FUENTES AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 3, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Russell Robinson was charged with multiple crimes in a multi-defendant
indictment filed on April 11, 2003. He was tried before a jury in the Virgin Islands and
found guilty on August 3, 2005. Robinson filed numerous post-trial motions, each of
which the District Court considered and disposed of. On December 22, 2006, Robinson
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,
seeking to void his trial and prohibit the District Judge from proceeding with the
sentencing hearing. He argues in the alternative that the jury did not, in fact, convict him
and that the entire proceeding was invalid due to prosecutorial error.1 Because Robinson
was sentenced on February 16, 2006, his attempt to prevent sentencing is now moot.
To the extent that Petitioner seeks to have his trial declared void, we note
that mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To prevail, the petitioner
must establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a
“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must
determine that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79. Mandamus
cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. See, e.g., Id. At 372. The regular appeal
process for criminal cases clearly provides an adequate means for Robinson to raise his
concerns about his trial. Present consideration of those claims would allow petitioner to
circumvent that appeals process.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus.
1
Petitioner also describes many other perceived errors in the proceeding but
acknowledges that it is inappropriate to raise them at this time.
2