Case Title: Matter of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 500, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF DAMMEYIN A. 
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 500, 2007 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    October 25, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 25th day of October 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Dammeyin A. Johnson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to issue a decision on his motion for credit time.  
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) 
In December 2006, Johnson filed a motion in Superior Court 
Criminal I.D. No. 9709009665 to modify his sentence to reflect the time he 
was held before trial in default of bail.  Johnson requests this Court to 
compel the Superior Court to act on his motion. 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
  
(3) 
The docket reflects that it has been over ten months since 
Johnson filed his original motion for credit time.  However, an appeal by 
Johnson to this Court in the same matter (Supreme Court No. 571, 2007) 
was pending until May 11, 2007, during which time the Superior Court did 
not have jurisdiction to decide the motion.2  As such, Johnson’s motion has 
been pending in the Superior Court for only five months. 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a lower court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent 
to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that: he has a 
clear right to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is 
available; and the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.4  This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court 
to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular 
way, or to dictate the control of its docket.5   
 
(5) 
This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus as a means of 
controlling the Superior Court’s docket.  The passage of five months, in and 
of itself, does not constitute an arbitrary failure or refusal to act on the part 
of the Superior Court.  Because Johnson has failed to demonstrate that he is 
                                                 
2 Eller v. State, 531 A.2d 948, 951 (Del. 1987). 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
 
3
entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, his petition must be 
dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Johnson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                      Justice