Case Title: Matter of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 723, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ROGER L. 
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 723, 2010 
§  Cr. ID No. 9908000065 
§ 
 
 
      Submitted: November 23, 2010 
         Decided: December 20, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 20th day of December 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Roger L. Johnson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to grant his motion for postconviction relief on the 
ground that the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury at his criminal trial.  
Johnson also requests that his current sentence be vacated, a new trial be 
scheduled, bail be granted pending trial, and a plea to a lesser-included 
offense with a sentence to time served be considered by the prosecutor.  The 
State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Johnson’s petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Johnson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in May 2000, Johnson was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of two counts each of Robbery in the 
First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony, and one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of eighty years at Level V 
incarceration.  This Court affirmed Johnson’s convictions on direct appeal.2  
Thereafter, Johnson filed his first motion for postconviction relief.  This 
Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the motion.3  Johnson has filed 
a second motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court, which is 
pending at this time. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.4  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.5  This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court 
                                                 
2 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 578, 2000, Steele, J. (June 18, 2002).   
3 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 517, 2007, Berger, J. (Apr. 21, 2008). 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. 
 
3
to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular 
way or to dictate control of its docket.6   
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Johnson has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a 
duty that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform.  
Moreover, Johnson has improperly asked this Court to dictate to the 
Superior Court how it should decide a particular matter.  Finally, Johnson 
has failed to demonstrate that no other adequate remedy is available to him, 
since his second motion for postconviction relief is now pending in the 
Superior Court. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Johnson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
6 In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999).