Case Title: Matter of Brown

Citation: 

Docket Number: 506, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JERON D. BROWN 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 506, 2009 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 17, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 17th day of September 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Jeron D. Brown, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the New Castle County Prothonotary to provide him with copies of 
documents relating to his January 2004 arrest in Criminal Identification 
Number VN9508078902.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer 
requesting that Brown’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Brown’s 
petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in July 1996, Brown was found guilty 
by a Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Third Degree, Misdemeanor 
Theft, and Criminal Mischief.  This Court affirmed Brown’s convictions on 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
direct appeal2 and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Brown’s two 
subsequent postconviction motions.3  Brown later was found to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) with respect to his sentences.  
In his instant petition, Brown asks this Court to compel the New Castle 
County Prothonotary to provide him with copies of the January 27, 2004 
VOP report and the accompanying arrest warrant in order to “insure that a 
miscarriage of justice has not occurred.”   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.4  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.5 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  As a procedural matter, this Court only has the authority to compel a 
trial court to perform a duty.6  Even if considered on the merits, Brown has 
failed to demonstrate that the Prothonotary has arbitrarily failed or refused to 
                                                 
2 Brown v. State, Del. Supr., No. 534, 1996, Holland, J. (Mar. 2, 1998). 
3 Brown v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1998, Veasey, C.J. (May 21, 1999); Brown v. State, 
Del. Supr., No. 168, 2000, Veasey, C.J. (Dec. 13, 2000). 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
 
3 
perform a duty clearly owed to him---that is, to provide copies of documents 
relevant to an incident that occurred almost six years ago and for which 
Brown has shown no particularized need.  As such, Brown’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Brown’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice