Case Title: Matter of Thomas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 557, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF RONNIE THOMAS 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS  
§ 
§  No. 557, 2010 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  September 20, 2010 
    
Decided:  
October 25, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 25th day of October 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Ronnie Thomas, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to provide him with a “completely restored” copy of the 
transcript of his 1996 trial.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer 
requesting that Thomas’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Thomas’s 
petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.  
 
(2) 
 The record before us reflects that, following a Superior Court 
jury trial, Thomas was found guilty of 2 counts of Unlawful Sexual 
Intercourse in the Second Degree, 1 count of Attempted Unlawful Sexual 
Intercourse in the Second Degree, 1 count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in 
the Second Degree and 2 counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the Third 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
Degree.  He was sentenced to 37 years of Level V incarceration.  This Court 
affirmed Thomas’s convictions on direct appeal.2  In August 2010, Thomas 
filed a motion in the Superior Court requesting a copy of the full transcript 
of his 1996 trial.  The Superior Court denied the motion, resulting in the 
filing of the instant mandamus petition.   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.4 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Thomas not only has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty, but also has pursued another 
adequate remedy in the form of a motion for transcript.  The fact that the 
motion was unsuccessful does not mean that he may now pursue mandamus 
relief. 
                                                 
2 Thomas v. State, Del. Supr., No. 66, 1997, Walsh, J. (Dec. 15, 1997). 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
4 Id. 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Thomas’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack  B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice