Case Title: In the Matter of the Petition of Cedric D. Shackelford for a Writ of Mandamus

Citation: 

Docket Number: 369, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF CEDRIC D. 
SHACKELFORD FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 369, 2021 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 29, 2021 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 2, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the 
State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Cedric Shackelford, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus 
directing the Superior Court to investigate his attorney’s professional performance 
and to rule on two motions that Shackelford filed in that court in connection with a 
criminal case currently pending against him.  The State has filed an answer and 
motion to dismiss the petition.  After careful review, we conclude that the petition is 
without merit and must be dismissed. 
(2) 
Shackelford was arrested for various crimes arising out of an August 
15, 2019 armed robbery.  Shackelford qualified for the assistance of the Office of 
Defense Services, and an assistant public defender was appointed to represent him.  
Although he was represented by counsel, Shackelford filed various pro se motions 
2 
 
with the Superior Court, including a motion to disqualify counsel in which he 
complained about the responsiveness and strategic decisions of his court-appointed 
attorney and requested the appointment of a new attorney.  The Superior Court 
declined to take any action on the motion, noted that Shackelford does not have a 
constitutional right to the court-appointed attorney of his choosing, and forwarded 
the motion to defense counsel.  Later, Shackelford filed a motion to participate with 
counsel, which the Superior Court likewise forwarded to defense counsel.  Notably, 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 47 provides, in part, that the Superior Court “will not 
consider pro se applications made by defendants who are represented by counsel 
unless the defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the 
defense.”1   
(3) 
A writ of mandamus will issue to a trial court only if the petitioner can 
show: (i) a clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy 
is available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 
its duty.2  “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to 
act, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus 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 
 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 47. 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
3 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus under the 
circumstances presented here because Shackelford has other adequate remedies 
available to him.  If convicted, Shackelford may advance his claim that the Superior 
Court should have ruled on his pro se motions on direct appeal.4  Similarly, if 
convicted, Shackelford may challenge his counsel’s professional performance in 
postconviction proceedings.5  In the alternative, if Shackelford wishes to proceed 
pro se, he may petition the court to do that.  But a petitioner who has an adequate 
remedy in the appellate process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a 
substitute.6    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Chief Justice 
 
 
4 In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016, at *1 (Del. July 1, 2005). 
5 See generally Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160, 175 (Del. 2020). 
6 In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016, at *1.