In the Matter of the Petition of Justin Erskine for a Writ of Mandamus

Summary

The Court dismissed Erskine’s mandamus petition seeking a new postconviction proceeding and appointed counsel. It held that he had no entitlement to appointed counsel for a third postconviction motion because he alleged neither qualifying new evidence establishing a strong inference of actual innocence nor a new, retroactive constitutional rule. The Court also found no arbitrary failure by the Superior Court, noting that Erskine had been represented during his first postconviction proceeding.