Case Title: Matter of Biggins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 256, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS 
 
§   No. 256, 2010 
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  May 19, 2010 
Decided:  July 8, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of July 2010, upon consideration of James Arthur Biggins’ petition 
for a writ of certiorari, as well as the State=s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
Biggins seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an 
extraordinary writ of certiorari directing the Superior Court “to review the dismissal of 
Motion for Dismissal of under [sic] Interstate Compact and Extradiction [sic] Act….”1 
We conclude that Biggins’ petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court and therefore must be DISMISSED. 
(2) 
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct 
irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.2 Certiorari is available to challenge 
only a final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave 
question of public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for review is 
                                                          
 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5). 
 
 
-2- 
available.3  “Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no 
jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's claims.”4   
(3) 
The Superior Court docket in Biggins’ criminal case does not reflect that 
Biggins ever filed a motion to dismiss “under the Interstate Compact” or that the 
Superior Court ever dismissed or denied such a motion.  The extraordinary writ of 
certiorari is not an appropriate remedy for Biggins to seek review of his claim in the 
first instance by this Court.  Because Biggins has failed to meet the threshold 
requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, we conclude that his petition must 
be dismissed.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of certiorari 
is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
2 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
3 Id. 
4 Id.