Case Title: Matter of Biggins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 536, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
1See Biggins v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  468, 1997, Walsh, J., 1999 WL 1192332
(Nov.  24, 1999) (ORDER) (affirming Biggins’ convictions and sentence).  
2Biggins v.  Department of Correction, Del.  Super., C.A. No.  01M-09-008. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF JAMES
§
No 536, 2001
ARTHUR BIGGINS FOR
§
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
§
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
Submitted: November 15, 2001
Decided:
December 7, 2001
O R D E R
This 7th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the petition for
a writ of mandamus filed by James Arthur Biggins, the answer and motion to
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, and Biggins’ request to voluntarily
dismiss the petition, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Biggins is currently in the custody of the Department of
Correction.1  According to Biggins, in early September 2001, he filed two
complaints in the Superior Court.  One complaint was filed in Kent County
against the Department of Correction (“Kent County case”).2  The other
3Biggins v.  Callaway, et al., Del.  Super., C.A. No.  01C-08-026. 
4Biggins v.  Department of Correction, Del.  Super., C.A. No.  01M-09-008,
Witham, J.  (Oct.  10, 2001). 
5Biggins v.  Callaway, et al., Del.  Super., C.A. No.  01C-08-026, Bradley, J.
(Nov.  5, 2001).
6Biggins v.  Callaway, et al., Del.  Supr., No.  581, 2001.
2
complaint was filed in Sussex County against several attorneys (“Sussex
County case”).3  
(2)
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Biggins alleges that the
Superior Court refused to acknowledge receipt of the complaints in both his
Kent County case and his Sussex County case.  The State’s answer and motion
to dismiss clarifies, however, that both of Biggins’ cases have been dismissed.
By order dated October 10, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed the Kent
County case.4  By order dated November 5, 2001, the Superior Court
dismissed the Sussex County case.5  
(3)
In his request to voluntarily dismiss his petition for a writ of
mandamus, Biggins acknowledges that he was aware that his Sussex County
case had been dismissed.  Indeed, Biggins has filed a notice of appeal from
that dismissal.6  Consequently, to the extent Biggins’ petition for a writ of
mandamus concerns his Sussex County case, Biggins’ petition is moot.
7Biggins v.  Department of Correction, Del.  Supr., No.  615, 2001. 
8See Bey v.  State, Del.  Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979) (holding that the
defendant’s untimely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel).
3
(4)
Biggins does not concede, however, that he was aware that his
Kent County case had been dismissed.  Indeed, in his request to voluntarily
dismiss his mandamus petition, Biggins contends that he learned that his Kent
County case had been dismissed from the State’s answer and motion to
dismiss.  In turn, Biggins requests that the Court (i) levy “appropriate
sanctions” against the Kent County Superior Court for its failure to notify him
of the October 10 dismissal, and (ii) enlarge the period from which to file a
timely notice of appeal from the October 10 dismissal. 
(5)
On November 26, 2001, Biggins filed an untimely notice of
appeal from the October 10 dismissal of his Kent County case.7  The Clerk
has issued a notice to Biggins to show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed as untimely filed.  If Biggins argues in his response to the notice to
show cause that his untimely appeal is related to court-related  personnel, the
Court will address Biggins’ claim and will determine whether his case falls
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a
notice of appeal.8
9In re Bordley, Del.  Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). 
4
(6)
This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only
when the petitioner can show that there is a clear right to the performance of
a duty at the time of the petition, no other adequate remedy is available, and
that the trial court has failed or refused to perform its duty.9  In the context of
this mandamus proceeding, Biggins has not demonstrated that he is entitled to
an enlargement of the appeal period from the October 10 dismissal of the Kent
County case, nor has he demonstrated that he is without an appropriate
remedy to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Biggins’ petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice