Case Title: Matter of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 343, 2005, 431, 2005, 494, 2005, 518, 2005, 553, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RONALD G.
§
No. 343, 2005
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RONALD G.
§
No. 431, 2005
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF RONALD G.
§
No. 494, 2005
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF
§
ERROR.
§
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RONALD G.
§
No. 518, 2005
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RONALD G.
§
No. 553, 2005
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF 
§
MANDAMUS or PROHIBITION.
§
§
Consolidated for Decision
Submitted: November 9, 2005
Decided:
December 13, 2005
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 13  day of December 2005, the Court has considered Ronald G. Johnson’s
th
pro se petitions for a writ of mandamus filed respectively in No. 343, 2005, No. 431,
The Court has not considered Johnson’s unsolicited submissions, including his various
1
motions and his responses to the State’s answers and motions to dismiss.  See generally Supr. Ct.
R. 43 (governing procedure for extraordinary relief); see Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(ii), (vii) (prohibiting
such submissions unless directed by the Court).
See State v. Johnson, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0504012348.
2
2
2005 and No. 518, 2005, the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition filed in
No. 553, 2005, and the petition for a writ of error filed in No. 494, 2005 (collectively
“the petitions for extraordinary relief”); the answers and motions to dismiss filed by
the State of Delaware in No. 343, 2005, No. 431, 2005, No. 494, 2005 and No. 518,
2005,  and the State’s motion for leave to file answer out of time in No. 553, 2005,
1
and it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Johnson’s petitions for extraordinary relief arise from a pending Superior
Court criminal matter.   In the interest of judicial economy, the petitions for
2
extraordinary relief have been consolidated, sua sponte, for decision.
(2)
On May 31, 2005, Johnson was indicted on nine offenses, including
unlawful imprisonment, offensive touching, resisting arrest, menacing and weapons
offenses.  Johnson’s final case review was held on November 7, 2005, and his
criminal trial is scheduled to begin on May 16, 2006.
(3)
The aggregated petitions for extraordinary relief seek an Order of this
Court compelling the Superior Court to (a) release Johnson by habeas corpus, (b)
assign his criminal case to a different judge, (c) docket his various pro se applications,
Johnson is currently in custody in default of bail.  He has filed a motion to remove his
3
counsel; the motion is pending before a Superior Court Commissioner.
See Johnson v. State, 2005 WL 2123789 (Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of habeas corpus
4
relief).
See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6) (providing that the Court may issue “writs of prohibition,
5
quo warranto, certiorari and mandamus”); In re Cantrell, 678 A.2d 525, 526 (Del. 1996) (dismissing
habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction); In re Phillips, 2002 WL 31190861 (Del. Supr.)
(dismissing petition for writ of error for lack of jurisdiction).
In re Abdul-Akbar, 1998 WL 986004 (Del. Supr.) (citing In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38
6
(Del. 1991)).
3
(d) order discovery, (e) hold an evidentiary hearing, (f) remove his assistant public
defender, and (g) dismiss the charges.   The petitions for extraordinary relief also seek
3
an Order compelling the prison warden and the prosecutor to take certain action.
Finally, the petitions for extraordinary relief seek to compel the Court to reconsider
its Order of August 31, 2005 that affirmed the denial of Johnson’s earlier pro se
habeas corpus petition.4
(4)
This Court has no jurisdiction to issue either a writ of habeas corpus or
a writ of error.   Moreover, the Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is
5
limited to judicial officers or courts and does not include the warden or the
prosecutor.   Thus, to the extent Johnson seeks a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of error,
6
and writs of mandamus directed to the warden and the prosecutor, the petitions for
extraordinary relief must be dismissed.
Rogers v. State, 457 A.2d 727, 731 (Del. 1983).
7
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
8
In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988).
9
See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2701 (providing that the Superior Court has jurisdiction “over
10
all crimes, except where jurisdiction is exclusively vested in another court”).
See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b) (providing that the Court’s criminal appellate jurisdiction
11
is limited to cases “in which the sentence shall be death, imprisonment exceeding one month, or fine
exceeding One Hundred Dollars”).
4
(5)
A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are both “coercive orders
[that are] used to grant relief when the traditional appeal route is unavailable or will
not provide an adequate remedy at law.”   When seeking a writ of mandamus, the
7
petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to
perform a duty.   When seeking a writ of prohibition, the petitioner must demonstrate
8
that the trial court is without jurisdiction or is attempting to exceed its jurisdiction.9
(6)
The Court concludes that neither mandamus nor prohibition relief is
warranted in Johnson’s case.  Johnson has not demonstrated that the Superior Court
has failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him or that the Superior Court lacks
jurisdiction to proceed with his criminal trial.   Moreover, Johnson has not
10
established that the appellate remedy is insufficient to address his claims in the event
he is convicted.  If Johnson is convicted and his sentence satisfies the Court’s
jurisdictional requirements, he will have a right to file an appeal.   Conversely, unless
11
Reid v. State, 2005 WL 991250 (Del. Supr.) (citing Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401
12
(Del. 1997)).
In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016 (Del. Supr.) (citing Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883,
13
885 (Del. 1965)).
See In re Johnson, 2005 WL 1355126 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing petition for writs of habeas
14
corpus, mandamus and prohibition).  See also Johnson v. State, 2005 WL 2123789 (Del. Supr.)
(affirming denial of petition for habeas corpus); Johnson v. State, ___ WL ___, Del. Supr., No. 254,
2005, Holland, J. (July 11, 2005) (ORDER) (dismissing untimely appeal); Johnson v. State, 2005
WL 2105388 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing criminal interlocutory appeal).
Johnson v. Williams, Del. Supr., No. 413, 2005.  A motion to dismiss the appeal is pending
15
before the Court.
5
and until Johnson is convicted and sentenced, his case will not be appealable.   The
12
extraordinary writ process is not a substitute for appellate review.13
(7)
Between May 13, 2005 and the date of this Order, Johnson has initiated
a total of ten pro se cases concerning his pending Superior Court criminal matter.  To
date, the Court has disposed of four of Johnson’s cases, including his prior
unsuccessful petition for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition.   Of the
14
remaining six cases that are pending before the Court, one is an appeal from a
Commissioner’s ruling.   The other five are the petitions for extraordinary relief that
15
are the subject of this consolidated Order of dismissal.
(8)
In view of the Court’s earlier dismissal of Johnson’s petition for writs of
habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition, the petitions for extraordinary relief that
are the subject of this dismissal Order are repetitive, frivolous and constitute an abuse
of the Court’s judicial process.  Consequently, the Court has concluded that, in the
The Court is dismissing No. 553, 2005, sua sponte, pursuant to Supr. Ct. R. 29(c), which
16
provides that the Court may dismiss a petition for extraordinary relief that “manifestly fails on its
face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.”
6
absence of a specific Order of this Court, the Clerk shall not docket any further pro
se petitions for extraordinary relief that are filed by Johnson concerning his pending
Superior Court criminal case.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules
29(c)  and 43, that the petitions for extraordinary relief are hereby DISMISSED.  The
16
State’s motion for leave to file answer out of time filed in No. 553, 2005 is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs
Justice