Case Title: IMO of the Petition of Thomas Miller for a Writ of Certiorari

Citation: 

Docket Number: 317, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF THOMAS MILLER 
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
 
§   
§ No. 317, 2022 
§  
§ 
Submitted: September 21, 2022 
Decided: 
October 18, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Thomas Miller, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 
certiorari.  The State filed an answer and motion to dismiss the petition.  After 
careful review, we conclude that Miller’s petition must be dismissed. 
(2) 
In 1994, a Superior Court jury found Miller guilty of first-degree 
unlawful sexual intercourse and second-degree burglary.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Miller to life imprisonment plus eight years.  On direct appeal, this 
Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.1  Miller subsequently filed 
unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief and extraordinary writs.2   
 
1 Miller v. State, 1995 WL 301379 (Del. May 9, 1995). 
2 See, e.g., Miller v. State, 2018 WL 3006123, at *1 (Del. June 14, 2018) (affirming the Superior 
Court’s denial of Miller’s motion for correction of illegal sentence); In re Miller, 2012 WL 
1267971, at *1 (Del. Apr. 12, 2012) (denying petition for a writ of mandamus); Miller v. State, 
2010 WL 2555084, at *1 (Del. June 25, 2010) (affirming the Superior Court's denial of Miller's 
fourth motion for postconviction for relief).  
 
2 
(3) 
On September 2, 2022, Miller filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.  
He alleges that a year ago he discovered new evidence, a report labelled rape kit 
and a sexual assault diagnosis, that the prosecutor prevented from going before the 
jury in 1994.  He contends that the trial judge should not have allowed the trial to 
continue.   
(4) 
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct 
irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.3  Certiorari is available to 
challenge a final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave 
question of public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for review is 
available.4  “Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no 
jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s claims, and the proceedings will be 
dismissed.”5   
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of certiorari in this case.  
Miller exercised his right to appeal his convictions.  If he possesses new evidence 
creating a strong inference of actual innocence, he can file a motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  If the Superior Court 
denies such a motion, then Miller can appeal that denial to this Court.  Miller has 
not shown a denial of his right to appeal, that a grave question of public policy is 
 
3 Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977). 
4 Id. at 437-38. 
5 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
 
3 
involved, or that no other basis of review is available.  Because Miller has not met 
the threshold requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, his petition for a 
writ of certiorari must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED and the petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura_______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice