Case Title: Matter of Bass

Citation: 

Docket Number: 485, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
 
§ 
No.  485, 2002 
PETITION OF DONALD BASS  
§ 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 
§ 
Cr.  ID No.  9607012102 
 
Submitted: October 31, 2002 
Decided: 
November 14, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th  day of November 2002, upon consideration of the petition for a 
writ of mandamus filed by Donald Bass, the answer and motion to dismiss filed 
by the State of Delaware, and the State’s supplemental answer dated October 31, 
2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In January 1998, after a Superior Court jury trial, Donald Bass was 
convicted of multiple counts of Robbery in the First Degree and multiple 
weapons offenses.  Bass was sentenced in November 1998 as a habitual offender. 
 On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.1 
                                                 
1Bass v. State, 2000 WL 1508724 (Del.  Supr.). 
(2) 
In April 2001, Bass requested the preparation of transcripts at State 
expense.  Specifically, Bass requested transcripts of two case review hearings that 
 
 
2 
took place on October 31, 1996 and December 9, 1996.  The Superior Court 
denied Bass’ request.   
(3) 
In May 2001, Bass filed a motion for postconviction relief.  By order 
dated October 17, 2001, the Superior Court denied Bass’ postconviction 
motion.2  Bass filed an appeal from the October 17 denial of postconviction 
relief, but his appeal was dismissed as untimely.3   
 
(4) 
In April 2002, Bass requested permission from the Superior Court 
to purchase the transcripts of the October 31 and December 9, 1996 case review 
hearings.   Bass’ request was granted.   
(5) 
The Superior Court court reporters provided Bass with a transcript 
of the October 31, 1996 case review hearing.  The court reporters could not, 
however, locate the stenographic notes from the December 9, 1996 case review 
hearing.  Accordingly, by letter dated July 30, 2002, the court reporters informed 
Bass that they could not prepare a transcript of the December 9, 1996 case review 
hearing. 
                                                 
2State v.  Bass, 2001 WL 1628476 (Del.  Super.  Ct.). 
3Bass v.  State, 2001 WL 1636762 (Del.  Supr.). 
 
 
3 
(6) 
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Bass seeks to compel the 
Superior Court to provide him with a transcript of the December 9, 1996 case 
review hearing.  The Superior Court is unable, however, to produce a copy of the 
December 9, 1996 case review hearing transcript for Bass.  The vital stenographic 
notes from the December 9, 1996 case review hearing are no longer in the 
possession of the Superior Court court reporters.  The notes from the December 
9 case review hearing are, for all intents and purposes, lost.4 
(7) 
“A court will not grant a writ of mandamus unless it is convinced 
that the issuance of such a writ will effectively achieve the purpose sought by the 
[petitioner].”5  Mandamus will not issue to require the performance of an 
impossible act.6   
                                                 
4At this Court’s request, the State conducted an independent inquiry into the 
availability of the stenographic notes from the December 6, 1996 case review hearing.  By 
letter dated October 31, 2002, the State reported that “it appears extremely unlikely that the 
notes can be found.” 
5Economic Opportunities Development Corp.  v.  Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266,  267 (Tex. 
 
 
4 
                                                                                                                                                 
Civ. App. 1978). 
6Id. at 268. 
 
 
5 
(8) 
In this case, mandamus will not be issued to compel the Superior 
Court to furnish a transcript that is impossible to produce.  Bass, however, is not 
without a legal remedy to address the alleged prejudicial effect of the missing 
transcript.  Bass may raise the alleged relevancy of the December 9, 1996 case 
review hearing transcript in a motion for postconviction relief.  Bass may also 
invoke the provisions of Supr. Ct. R. 9(g), if appropriate, in any further 
proceeding. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
s/Joseph T. Walsh  
 
 
 
 
                        Justice