Case Title: Matter of Black

Citation: 

Docket Number: 516, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

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

Document:
1The Court has not considered Black’s unsolicited “reply to State’s answer and
motion to dismiss.”  See Supr.  Ct.  R.  43(b)(ii) (providing that “unless the Court
otherwise directs, no further submissions of the parties shall be accepted”).
2Black v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  173, 1985, Walsh, J., 1986 WL 16979 (June
23, 1986) (ORDER).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF DEAN C.
§
No.  516, 2001
BLACK FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
Submitted: November 6, 2001
Decided:
December 7, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R 
This 7th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the petition for
a writ of mandamus filed by Dean C. Black and the answer and motion to
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware,1 it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In 1985, a Superior Court jury convicted Dean C.  Black of two
counts of Attempted Rape in the First Degree.  The victim was Black’s minor
daughter.  Black was sentenced to a total of 25 years in prison, suspended for
probation after serving 15 years.  On direct appeal, this Court affirmed
Black’s conviction and sentence.2  This Court also affirmed the Superior
3Black v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  9, 1989, Moore, J., 1989 WL 42302 (Mar.  3,
1989) (ORDER). 
4See Black v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  242, 1999, Holland, J., 1999 WL 1098171
(Nov.  2, 1999) (ORDER) (affirming the denial of Black’s motion for correction of
sentence).
2
Court’s denial of Black’s motion for postconviction relief.3  In 1997, Black
was found to be in violation of probation and was sentenced to 10 years in
prison, suspended after serving 9½ years for a period of work release.4
(2)
In September 2001, Black submitted to the Family Court a
“motion for relief from judgment” requesting that the Family Court set aside
Black’s convictions in the Superior Court.  In support of his motion, Black
contended that the sexual assault of his daughter constituted incest, an offense
that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.   The Family
Court did not docket Black’s “motion for relief from judgment,” but instead
returned Black’s papers to him with an “Advisory Notice of Deficiency.”  
(3)
Black asks for a writ of mandamus to compel the Family Court
to accept his papers for filing.  This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to
a trial court only when the petitioner can show that: (i) there is the clear right
to the performance of a duty at the time of the petition; (ii) no other adequate
5In re Bordley, Del.  Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
6Black v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  353, 2000, Holland, J., 2000 WL 1627205
(Oct. 26, 2000) (ORDER).
3
remedy is available; and (iii) the trial court has failed or refused to perform
its duty.5  
(4)
Black has not demonstrated that the Family Court has refused to
perform a duty owed to him.  The Family Court has no authority to set aside
a Superior Court conviction.  Moreover, Black’s underlying complaint, that
the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over the charges brought against
him, is without merit.  This Court has already decided that the Superior Court
had jurisdiction over the charges against Black.6  There is no basis for the
Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Family Court.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Black’s petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice