Case Title: Matter of Kostyshyn

Citation: 

Docket Number: 294, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF PETER KOSTYSHYN FOR AN  
§  No. 294, 2011 
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 16, 2011 
Decided: 
July 12, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the petition of Peter 
Kostyshyn for an extraordinary writ and for the appointment of counsel and the 
State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Peter Kostyshyn, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue writs of 
mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition to the Superior Court, the Court of 
Common Pleas, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Attorney General’s 
Office directing them “to bring forward all court proceedings of CCP case # 
0902010151, #0902010157,1 that ever were held [in the Superior Court and/or] 
the Grand Jury [and/or the Court of Common Pleas.]”  Kostyshyn also requests 
that counsel be appointed to represent him. 
                                                          
 
1 The defendant associated with Criminal ID 0902010157 is not Kostyshyn, but his sister 
Patricia.  Kostyshyn is not a lawyer and has no legal standing to pursue an extraordinary writ 
on behalf of anyone but himself. See Pennell v. State, 1992 WL 135150 (Del. Mar. 13, 
1992).  Accordingly, we only review the current petition as it relates to Kostyshyn himself. 
 
2 
(2) 
The State of Delaware has filed a motion to dismiss Kostyshyn’s 
petition on the grounds that it is unsupported by the law or facts.  As the State 
points out, Kostyshyn’s underlying criminal case in No. 0902010151 was an 
appeal to the Superior Court from Kostyshyn’s criminal conviction in the Court 
of Common Pleas.  The docket in that criminal case reflects that the Superior 
Court dismissed Kostyshyn’s appeal in February 2011, after giving him notice 
and an opportunity to be heard, because Kostyshyn failed to pay the required 
filing fee or, alternatively, to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 
that case.  Accordingly, the State argues, Kostyshyn’s criminal conviction in 
No. 0902010151 is final, and Kostyshyn’s sole remedy is to seek 
postconviction relief.  We agree.2 
(3) 
While it is not entirely clear from the face of Kostyshyn’s petition, 
it appears that he is requesting this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing 
the Superior Court to reopen the criminal proceedings in No. 0902010151.  A 
writ of mandamus, however, will only be issued if the complainant can show 
that:  he has a clear right to the performance of a duty; that no other adequate 
remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to 
                                                          
 
2 See Com. P. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2) (2011) (providing that Rule 61 provides the exclusive 
remedy for a person seeking to collaterally attack a criminal conviction).  
 
3 
perform its duty.3  In this case, Kostyshyn has an adequate remedy in the 
postconviction process.  If Kostyshyn files a postconviction motion in the Court 
of Common Pleas, he may request the Court of Common Pleas, in its 
discretion,4 to appoint counsel to represent him in those proceedings.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance 
of an extraordinary writ is DENIED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
       Justice 
 
                                                          
 
3In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
4 See Com. P. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e) (2011) (providing that the appointment of counsel in a 
postconviction proceeding is within the trial court’s discretion).