No. 531, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: November 24, 1999.
Decided: December 6, 1999.
MANDAMUS DISMISSED.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
MAURICE A. HARTNETT, III, Justice
O R D E R
This 6th day of December 1999, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Staten (“Staten”) and the amended answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1) With the assistance of counsel, Staten is pursuing postconviction relief in the Superior Court.[1] Staten, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court seeking to compel the Superior Court to act on the postconviction motion.
(2) It appears from the Superior Court docket that Staten’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed the motion for postconviction relief in April 1999. In August 1999, the Superior Court directed that Counsel file a letter memorandum explaining why the motion was timely and should be addressed by the Court. Counsel filed her letter memorandum on the August 27 deadline by mailing the letter directly to the Superior Court judge and by providing copies of the letter to the Prothonotary, counsel for the State, and to Staten. “Due to other judicial responsibilities,”[2] the Superior Court judge took no additional action on Staten’s postconviction motion and Counsel’s letter memorandum until November 1999, when Staten filed the pending pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. Upon receiving notice of the filing of the petition, the Superior Court judge assessed the status of the postconviction motion and directed that counsel for the State file a response to the motion and to Counsel’s letter memorandum. The State’s response is due to be filed by December 17, 1999.[3]
(3) This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only when the petitioner can show that there is the clear right to the performance of a duty at the time of the petition, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court has failed or refused to perform the duty.[4] In this case, Staten has not demonstrated that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to act upon the postconviction motion. In furtherance of the judicial process, the Superior Court judge assigned to the case has directed a response to the postconviction motion and to Counsel’s arguments that the motion is timely. “This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket.”[5]
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Staten’s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.