Case Title: Matter of Brown

Citation: 

Docket Number: 132, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF JERON D. BROWN §   No. 132, 2007 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
AND/OR PROHIBITION 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 28, 2007 
  Decided: May 31, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 31st day of May 2007, upon consideration of Jeron Brown=s petition 
for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and the State=s answer and motion to 
dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Jeron Brown has filed a petition seeking to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43 to issue 
extraordinary writs of mandamus and prohibition to the Superior Court. Brown 
requests that the Superior Court be directed to grant, by default, his pending 
postconviction motion and to prohibit the Superior Court Commissioner from 
taking any further action on his postconviction motion. The State of Delaware 
has filed an answer and a motion to dismiss the petition for an extraordinary 
writ.  We find that Brown’s petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that a jury convicted Brown in 
2005 of second degree burglary, theft, criminal mischief, and two counts of 
receiving stolen property.  This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on 
direct appeal.1  On September 29, 2006, Brown filed his first petition for 
postconviction relief.  The motion was referred to a Commissioner for proposed 
findings and recommendations.  Given Brown’s allegations of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, the Commissioner directed Brown’s former counsel to 
file an affidavit responding to Brown’s allegations by November 8, 2006.   
Counsel has since filed several requests seeking extensions of time to file his 
affidavit.  Brown has objected to any extension requests.  Former counsel’s 
affidavit is now due to be filed by June 13, 2007. 
(3) 
Brown filed his present petition arguing that the numerous time 
extensions granted to former counsel is evidence of the Superior Court 
Commissioner’s bias and neglect and has caused unnecessary delay in deciding 
his postconviction motion.  He asks this Court to order the Superior Court to 
grant his postconviction motion by default and to prohibit the Superior Court 
Commissioner from taking any other action. 
                                                           
1 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748 (Del. 2006). 
 
 
-3-
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel an inferior court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the 
performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.2  A writ of 
mandamus will not be issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular 
judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control 
of its docket.”3  The Commissioner’s decision to permit defense counsel 
additional time to respond to Brown’s allegations is a matter within the 
Commissioner’s sound discretion.4  Mandamus will not lie to challenge the 
performance of a discretionary act.5 
(5) 
Furthermore, Brown’s petition states no basis for the issuance of a 
writ of prohibition.  Brown’s allegations of bias are based on the 
Commissioner’s decisions granting defense counsel’s extension requests.  
Without more, we find “no clear and convincing evidence that the 
[Commissioner] is disqualified … on the basis of bias.”6 
                                                           
2In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).   
3 Id. 
4 See Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1088 (Del. 1987). 
5 In re Marvel, 2003 WL 1442466 (Del. Mar. 19, 2003). 
6 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 
 
 
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Brown's petition for the 
issuance of an extraordinary writ is DENIED.  The State's motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
Justice