Case Title: Matter of Marvel

Citation: 

Docket Number: 29, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
1Marvel v.  State, 1991 WL 22358 (Del.  Supr.).
2Marvel v.  State, 1992 WL 219204 (Del.  Supr.).
3Marvel v.  State, 1994 WL 19022 (Del.  Supr.).; Marvel v.  State, 1994 WL 590534
(Del.  Supr.); Marvel v. State, 1997 WL 168326 (Del.  Supr); Marvel v.  State, 2002 WL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF LARRY D.
§
No.  29, 2003
MARVEL FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
Submitted: February 4, 2003
Decided:
March 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the petition for a writ
of mandamus filed by Larry D. Marvel and the answer and motion to dismiss
filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In 1990, a Superior Court jury convicted Larry D. Marvel of the
charge of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree.  The Superior
Court sentenced Marvel to twenty years of imprisonment, suspended after
seventeen years, for three years of probation.  This Court affirmed Marvel’s
conviction and sentence on direct appeal.1  The Court also affirmed the denial
of Marvel’s new trial motion2 and affirmed the denials of four postconviction
motions.3
714812 (Del.  Supr.).
4Marvel v.  State, Del.  Super., C.A. No.  02M-12-007, Bradley, J.  (Dec.  24. 2002).
5In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del.  1997). 
6Id.
2
(2)
In December 2002, Marvel filed in the Superior Court a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus and an application for certification of questions of
law under Supreme Court Rule 41.  In those papers, Marvel challenged, as he
had in his prior postconviction motions, the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to
conduct his trial.  By order dated December 24, 2002, the Superior Court
denied the habeas corpus petition and the application for certification.4
(3)
Marvel has now applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus.
Marvel seeks review of the Superior Court’s denial of his habeas corpus
petition and certification request.  Marvel’s petition, however, must be
dismissed.  First, to the extent Marvel seeks review of the denial of his habeas
corpus petition, mandamus does not serve as a substitute for ordinary appellate
proceedings.5  Marvel could have appealed from the denial of his habeas
petition, but he did not do so.  Under settled law, Marvel cannot invoke the
Court’s original jurisdiction to obtain review of the Superior Court’s decision.6
7In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del.  1988).
8State v.  Superior Court, 141 A.2d 468, 471 (Del.  1958).
3
(4)
Second, mandamus does not serve to review discretionary acts.7
A certification of questions under law under Supreme Court Rule 41 lies
entirely within the discretion of the certifying court.8  Given the discretionary
nature of a proceeding under Supreme Court 41, Marvel does not have a clear
right to certification by the Superior Court of his proposed questions.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Marvel’s petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
  s/Joseph T. Walsh
        Justice