MATTER OF EVANS, 790 A.2d 476 (Del. 2002)

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM JOHN EVANS FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION.

No. 586, 2001Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: February 4, 2002

PROHIBITION DISMISSED.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM JOHN EVANS FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION. No. 586, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: February 4, 2002

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

Randy J. Holland, Justice:

ORDER
This 4th day of February 2002, upon consideration of William John Evans’ petition for a writ of prohibition and the State of Delaware’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:

(1) William John Evans has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the “State of Delaware along with the Department of Corrections.” Evans’ petition seeks his conditional release upon the completion of the Level V portion of his sentence. Evans is concerned that he will be held at Level V facility pending availability of a Level IV placement.[1]

(2) Evans sought similar relief in a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court. By order dated July 31, 2001, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment.[2] Evans attempted to appeal the decision; however, his appeal was dismissed as untimely.[3]

(3) This Court has the authority to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a court in this State from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.[4]

The Court does not have the authority to issue a writ of prohibition to a non-judicial entity such as the Department of Correction.[5] Thus, to the extent Evans requests that this Court issue a writ of prohibition to the Department of Correction, his petition manifestly fails on its face to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction.[6] To the extent Evans seeks this Court’s review of the Superior Court’s decision of July 21, 2001, his petition is unavailing. A petitioner may not use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute for appellate review.[7]

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Evans’ petition for a writ of prohibition is DISMISSED.

[1] Evans’ concern appears to be moot. According to the Department of Correction, Evans is currently at the Level IV Work Release Center in Sussex County.
[2] State v. Evans, 2001 WL 1482570 (Del.Super.Ct.).
[3] Evans v. State, Del. Supr., No. 423, 2001, Walsh, J. (Oct. 15, 2001).
[4] DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628
(Del. 1988).
[5] In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).
[6] Id.
[7] In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del. 1997).
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 790 A.2d 476

Recent Posts

LYON v. DBHI, LLC, C.A. No. U607-12-063 (Del. Jan. 27, 2010):

ROBERT LYONS Defendant Below, Appellant, v. DBHI, LLC, KURT T. BRYSON and RHONDA BRYSON Defendants…

3 years ago

TWITTER, INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 15, 2022)

TWITTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II,…

3 years ago

TWITTER, INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 23, 2022)

Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…

3 years ago

TWITTER INC. v. MUSK, C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM (Aug. 25, 2022)

Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…

3 years ago

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. ALVAREZ, 179 A.3d 824 (2018)

179 A.3d 824 (2018) CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, New York City Employees' Retirement System,…

8 years ago

STATE v. FLONNORY, No. 9707012190 (Del. Super. 1/2/2018)

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, v. FREDDY L. FLONNORY, Defendant. Cr. ID. No. 9707012190 SUPERIOR COURT…

8 years ago