Title: Matter of Durham

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF NORRIS
DURHAM FOR AN
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
§
§  No. 111, 2002
§ 
§
§
Submitted: March 22, 2002
  Decided:   May 6, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 6th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition of Norris
Durham for an extraordinary writ and the State’s answer and motion to
dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In May 1985, Durham pleaded guilty but mentally ill to Rape in
the First Degree and Kidnaping in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced to
incarceration at Level V for life, plus 30 years.  The Superior Court docket
sheet reflects that, in 1992 and 1997, Durham moved for postconviction relief
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied the
motions, but Miller did not appeal the Superior Court’s decisions to this
Court. Although it is not clear on the face of Durham’s petition for
extraordinary relief, it appears he is requesting that his convictions be
vacated.
1Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).
-2-
(2)
A petition for an extraordinary writ may not be used as a
substitute for a timely appeal.1 Durham failed to pursue fully the remedy
available to him pursuant to Rule 61 by appealing the Superior Court’s denials
of his motions for postconviction relief.  Moreover, Durham’s petition states
no basis for the issuance of an extraordinary writ.  For these reasons,
Durham’s petition for extraordinary relief must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Durham’s petition for an
extraordinary writ is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice