Case Title: Joyner v. Family Court

Citation: 

Docket Number: 276, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CORRIE HICKSON JOYNER,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
FAMILY COURT,  
 
          Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 276, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N10M-11-100 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 15, 2011 
Decided: August 15, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of August 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Corrie Hickson Joyner, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s May 18, 2011 order dismissing his petition for a writ of 
mandamus.  The respondent-appellee, the Family Court, has filed a motion to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the 
face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Joyner is an inmate serving Level V 
time at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware.  In October 
2010, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the Superior Court to 
require the Family Court to provide him with copies of psychiatric and 
psychological evaluations relevant to his pending Rule 61 postconviction motion in 
Superior Court.      
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s dismissal of his petition for a 
writ of mandamus, Joyner claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion 
when it dismissed his petition. 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by a court to 
compel a lower court to perform a duty.2  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 court 
has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 
 
(5) 
In the absence of any evidence that the Family Court arbitrarily failed 
or refused to perform a duty owed to Joyner, we conclude that the Superior Court 
properly dismissed Joyner’s petition for a writ of mandamus.   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
 
3
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there was no 
abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Family Court’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice