S. Ct. Civ. No. 2013-0046

A writ of mandamus to compel a Superior Court judge, rather than a magistrate, to consider the petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner has the remedy of appeal available to him, making mandamus relief inappropriate. In any event, 4 V.I.C. § 123 - which delineates the jurisdiction of Superior Court magistrates - authorizes a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, to submit proposed findings of fact and to make recommendations for the disposition by a Superior Court judge of applications of post-trial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses, which includes habeas corpus applications. Clerical error in checking a box on the referral form was of no importance since the habeas corpus petition and other filings in the underlying matter clearly reflect that petitioner is challenging his convictions rather than the conditions of his confinement, and the form could be clarified by the Superior Court judge if desired. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.