Case Title: Matter of Watson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 505, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
RE 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
KEAVNEY L. WATSON FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 505, 2005 
§ 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 29, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of December 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Keavney L. Watson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to provide him with documents that he alleges 
will support his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  The State of Delaware 
has filed an answer requesting that Watson’s petition be dismissed.  We find 
that Watson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of 
this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
In 1999, Watson pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with 
intent to deliver, driving under the influence, and driving with a revoked 
license.  In September 2005, Watson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty 
plea.  The Superior Court denied the motion.   
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Watson 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.3   
 
(4) 
There is no basis for a writ of mandamus in this case.  Watson 
has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has failed to perform a duty 
that is owed to him.  Moreover, Watson could have filed an appeal of the 
Superior Court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but 
did not do so.  Watson may not use mandamus as a substitute for appellate 
review.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).