Title: Matter of Flowers

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF GEARL T. 
FLOWERS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  Nos. 346 and 359, 20111 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2011 
Decided: August 16, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of August 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Gearl T. Flowers, seeks to invoke this Court’s original 
jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus2 to compel the Superior 
Court to grant his motion for a new trial.  The State of Delaware has filed an 
answer requesting that Flowers’ petition be dismissed.  We find that Flowers’ 
petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Flowers was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Third Degree and Theft.  Thereafter, he filed 
a motion for a new trial.  An office conference on the motion was held in the 
Superior Court in March 2011.  The motion has not yet been acted upon by the 
Superior Court.  The Superior Court docket reflects that the Superior Court has 
                                                 
1 The petitions in these two matters are identical. 
2 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
continued the sentencing hearing for Flowers pending its disposition of the motion 
for a new trial. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this Court 
to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  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.4  This Court will not 
compel the Superior Court to decide a matter in a particular way.5 
 
(4) 
Flowers has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.  Moreover, it is not this 
Court’s function to compel the Superior Court to decide Flowers’ motion for a new 
trial in a particular way.  As such, Flowers’ petition must be dismissed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Flowers’ petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Id.