Case Title: Matter of Walls

Citation: 

Docket Number: 390, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER E. 
WALLS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 390, 2002 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2002 
  Decided:   August 12, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of August 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Christopher E. Walls, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 compelling the 
Superior Court to act upon his October 17, 2001 motion for correction of illegal 
sentence.2  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer 
and a motion to dismiss the petition.  Because we find that Walls’ petition 
manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, the motion to 
dismiss must be GRANTED and the petition for a writ of mandamus 
DISMISSED.   
                                                 
1DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43. 
2SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(a). 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
On July 26, 2001, the Superior Court determined that Walls had 
violated his probation in connection with a previous conviction for Robbery in 
the First Degree.  Walls subsequently filed two motions for sentence 
modification, the first on September 7, 2001 and the second on September 18, 
2001.  He also filed a motion for correction of sentence on October 19, 2001.  
The Superior Court docket sheet reflects that the Superior Court denied Walls’ 
motions in its order dated December 3, 2001.    
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a lower court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that: a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is available; 
and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.4 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ in this case, since the 
Superior Court has already ruled on Walls’ motions in its December 3, 2001 
                                                 
3In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4Id. 
 
 
-3- 
order.  Walls’ request that the Superior Court rule on his October 19, 2001 
motion is, therefore, moot. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  Walls’ petition for a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice