Facts: The
petitioner, Heidi K. Erickson, challenged the District Court's finding that she
violated her probation, its imposition of a 30-day period of home detention and
probation on modified terms, and sought a stay of the modified terms of
probation. Both the petition and stay were denied by a single justice, after
which the petitioner moved that the single justice be recused. The single
justice denied recusal motion. The petitioner appealed this judgment.
Issues: Whether the single justice was obligated to
consider petitioner's request for a stay or her claims concerning probation
violation proceeding; and whether petitioner was entitled to the single
justice's recusal.
No. The single justice was not obligated to consider
petitioner's request for a stay or her claims concerning probation violation
proceeding. This was not an extraordinary occasion where adequate alternative
remedies do not exist due to the fact that the petitioner had already sought
and been denied substantially similar relief from the District Court judge and
a single justice of the Appeals Court.
No. The petitioner was not entitled to the single justice's
recusal. The petitioner points to nothing more than the single justice's
adverse rulings in this case and prior cases to support her claim that he was
not impartial. There has been no showing in what is before us that the
single justice was biased in this case, or that his ruling was “influenced by
any considerations other than the law.” Nothing suggests the single
justice abused his discretion or failed to apply the correct legal standards in
denying relief. (CH)
