Case Title: Matter of Rodriquez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 468, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
1State v.  Rodriguez, Del.  Super., Cr.A. Nos.  IK00-10-0041 - 0043.
2State v.  Rodriguez, Del.  Super., Cr.A. Nos.  IK00-06-0823, 0827.
3A corrected sentencing order issued on August 29, 2001.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
No.  468, 2001
PETITION OF VICTOR 
§
RODRIGUEZ FOR A WRIT
§
Def.  ID No.  0005017581
OF ERROR.
§
Def.  ID No.  0006009296
Submitted: October 3, 2001
Decided:
October 25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 25th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the petition of
Victor Rodriguez for a writ of error, and the State of Delaware’s answer and
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In December 2000, a Superior Court jury convicted Rodriguez
of three offenses:  Arson in the Second Degree, Arson in the Third Degree,
and Attempted Arson in the Second Degree.1  In June 2001, Rodriguez pled
guilty to two counts of Terroristic Threatening.2  In both cases, Rodriguez
was represented by Lloyd A.  Schmid, Jr., Esquire (“Counsel”).  Rodriguez
was sentenced in both cases on August 28, 2001.3  
4Del. Const. art.  IV, § 11(1)(b) and (2).
2
(2)
On September 19, 2001, Rodriguez filed a pro se notice of
appeal from all five convictions.  Rodriguez’ pro se appeal was docketed as
Rodriguez v.  State, No.  456, 2001.  On September 28, 2001, Counsel filed
a notice of appeal on behalf of Rodriguez.  Counsel limited the appeal,
however, to the three arson-related convictions for which Rodriguez was
adjudged guilty.  Counsel’s notice of appeal was also docketed in Rodriguez
v.  State, No.  456, 2001.  
(3)
On September 26, 2001, Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of
error.  In his petition, Rodriguez raises what appear to be appeal issues
related to his five convictions.
(4)
It is clear that “writs of error” have been abolished.  The
Supreme Court now hears “appeals” from the Superior Court in criminal
cases.4  Thus, to the extent Rodriguez intends his “writ of error” to serve as
5Del.  Const.  art.  IV, § 11(6).
6Del.  Const. art.  IV, § 11(1)(b).
7See Supr. Ct. R. 26(a) (providing for the continuing obligation of and
representation by counsel).
3
a notice of appeal from his five Superior Court convictions, Rodriguez’ writ
must be dismissed as repetitive, as Rodriguez already has an appeal docketed
in his criminal cases.  To the extent Rodriguez has petitioned this Court to
issue a “writ of error coram nobis,” Rodriguez’ petition must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.  The writ of error coram nobis is not one of the
extraordinary writs within the original jurisdiction of this Court.5
(5)
Notwithstanding Counsel’s attempt to limit Rodriguez’ appeal
to the three arson-related convictions, it is clear that Rodriguez intends to,
and is entitled to, appeal all five of his Superior Court convictions, including
the two Terroristic Threatening charges to which he pled guilty.6  The Court
will enter a separate Order in Rodriguez v.  State, No. 456, 2001, directing
Counsel to file an amended notice of appeal on behalf of Rodriguez as to all
five convictions.7
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Rodriguez’ petition for a writ of error is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Joseph T. Walsh   
Justice