Case Title: Matter of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 115, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ANDRE D. 
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 115, 2012 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: March 26, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 29, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of March 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Andre D. Johnson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to grant his motion for correction of his criminal 
sentence.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that 
Johnson’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Johnson’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, in May 1994, Johnson was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of two counts each of Burglary in the 
Second Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Misdemeanor Theft, 
and one count each of Theft of a Firearm, Resisting Arrest, Possession of a 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited, Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon and Disregarding a Traffic Device.  The Superior Court granted the 
State’s motion to sentence Johnson as a habitual offender to life in prison on 
one of his two burglary convictions.2  After unsuccessfully moving for 
modification or correction of his sentence on several occasions, Johnson 
now seeks mandamus relief to compel the Superior Court to vacate its life 
sentence on the ground that his habitual offender status must be applied to 
both of his burglary convictions, or neither. 
 
(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 defendant 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  This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court 
to perform a particular judicial function, decide a matter in a particular way 
or control its docket in a particular way.5 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(b). 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
 
3
Court to sentence a defendant in a particular way.  Moreover, Johnson has 
availed himself of the alternative remedy, albeit unsuccessfully, of moving 
the Superior Court for correction and/or modification of his sentence.  
Finally, this Court has previously ruled, in an appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of one of Johnson’s motions for correction of sentence,6 that 
the State had the discretion to seek habitual offender status in connection 
with one, rather than both, of Johnson’s burglary convictions.7  As such, 
Johnson bases his argument in support of his instant petition on a faulty legal 
premise.  Thus, for all of the above reasons, Johnson’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
 
                                                 
6 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 275, 2008, Steele, C.J. (Dec. 11, 2008). 
7 Id.