Case Title: Matter of Haskins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 224, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF CARL HASKINS, JR. §   No. 224, 2007 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 22, 2007 
  Decided: June 7, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of June 2007, upon consideration of Carl Haskins’ petition 
for a writ of mandamus and the State=s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
Carl Haskins has filed a petition seeking to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43 to issue an 
extraordinary writ of mandamus to the Superior Court.  Haskins requests that 
the Superior Court be directed to grant his motion to dismiss his criminal case 
because of a defective indictment.1  The State of Delaware has filed an answer 
and a motion to dismiss the petition for an extraordinary writ.  We find that 
Haskins’ petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
                                                           
1 Haskins pled guilty in 1989 to one count of second degree rape. See Haskins v. 
State, 1991 WL 165563 (Del. Aug. 19, 1991). 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the 
performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.2  A writ of 
mandamus will not be issued “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.”3   Haskins seeks mandamus to compel the Superior Court to rule 
in his favor on his pending motion to dismiss.  A writ of mandamus will not be 
issued, however, to compel the Superior Court to grant his motion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Haskins' petition for the 
issuance of an extraordinary writ is DENIED.  The State's motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
Justice 
 
                                                           
2In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).   
3 Id.