Case Title: Matter of Fountain

Citation: 

Docket Number: 411, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF NORMAN INGRAM AND MARTIN 
§   No. 411, 2013 
FOUNTAIN FOR A WRIT OF  
 
 
§ 
CERTIORARI 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 8, 2013 
  Decided: 
August 20, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of August 2013, upon consideration of the petition of Norman 
Ingram and Martin Fountain for a writ of certiorari, as well as the State=s answer and 
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioners seek to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an 
extraordinary writ of certiorari requesting review of their respective 2003 sentences.  
In separate proceedings, each petitioner was convicted of Possession with Intent to 
Deliver a Schedule II Controlled Substance and was sentenced as a non-addict to serve 
fifteen years, minimum mandatory, at Level V incarceration.   The petitioners contend 
that, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alleyne v. 
United States,1 the jury, not the trial judge, was required to make the factual finding 
that each was a non-addict and that the element of being a non-addict should have been 
charged in the indictment. 
                                                          
 
1 133 S. Ct. 2151 (June 17, 2013).  
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The State has filed an answer and motion to dismiss the petition.  The 
State asserts that the petitioners have failed to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction 
to issue an extraordinary writ because they have another adequate remedy at law.  
After careful review, we agree and conclude that the petition manifestly fails to invoke 
the original jurisdiction of this Court.   
(3) 
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct 
irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.2 Certiorari is only available to 
challenge 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 
available.3  “Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no 
jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's claims.”4   
(4) 
In this case, the petitioners argue that the holding of Alleyne v. United 
States creates a new constitutional right that should be retroactively applied to their 
respective cases.  Such an argument, however, may be reviewed by the Superior Court 
in the first instance in conjunction with a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.5  Because the petitioners have another adequate legal 
                                                          
 
2 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (5) (2013). 
 
 
-3-
basis for review of their claim, their petition fails to meet the threshold requirements 
for the issuance of an extraordinary writ of certiorari.  Accordingly, we conclude that 
the petition must be dismissed.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of certiorari 
is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice