Case Title: Matter of Sample

Citation: 

Docket Number: 232, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF STEPHON SAMPLE §   No. 232, 2007 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
AND/OR PROHIBITION 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 23, 2007 
  Decided: June 6, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of June 2007, upon consideration of Stephon Sample=s 
petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and the State=s answer and 
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Stephon Sample has filed a petition seeking to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43 to issue 
extraordinary writs of mandamus and prohibition to the Superior Court. Sample 
requests that the Superior Court be directed to grant, by default, his pending 
postconviction motion. Sample also requests that the Superior Court 
Commissioner be prohibited from taking any further action on his 
postconviction motion. The State of Delaware has filed an answer and a motion 
to dismiss the petition for an extraordinary writ.  We find that Sample’s petition 
manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the 
petition must be dismissed. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that Sample pled guilty in 2005 
to trafficking in cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-five years, to be 
suspended after serving ten years for probation. Sample did not appeal.  In 
January 2006, Sample filed his first petition for postconviction relief.  The 
motion was referred to a Commissioner for proposed findings and 
recommendations. In January 2007, the Commissioner filed her report and 
recommendation that Sample’s motion be denied.  On March 19, 2007, the 
Superior Court judge adopted the Commissioner’s report and recommendation 
and denied Sample’s motion.  Sample did not file a timely appeal.1 
 (3) 
Sample filed his present petition arguing that the Commissioner 
improperly granted lengthy extensions below in violation of the Superior 
Court’s own rules of procedure.  He appears to request this Court to order the 
Superior Court to grant his postconviction motion by default and to prohibit the 
Superior Court Commissioner from taking any other action below. 
(4) 
To the extent Sample is requesting the writ of mandamus to 
compel the Superior Court to act on his postconviction motion, it is clear that 
                                                           
1 It appears that Sample filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s March 19 
order on June 4, 2007 in appeal no. 278, 2007.  In response to a rule to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, Sample contends that he was unaware that the 
Superior Court had acted on his postconviction motion.  Disposition of the rule to show 
cause is pending. 
 
 
-3-
his request is moot.  The motion was denied on March 19, 2007.  To the extent 
Sample is seeking reversal of the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for 
postconviction relief, a writ of mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for a 
timely filed appeal.2   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Sample's petition for the 
issuance of an extraordinary writ is DENIED.  The State's motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
 
                                                           
2 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).