Title: Matter of Evans

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF AUGUSTUS 
HEBREW EVANS, JR., FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 167, 2013 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: April 11, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 29, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr., seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to rule on the merits of his latest postconviction motion 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) (5) rather than base its decision on 
Rule 61’s procedural bars.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting 
that Evans’ petition be dismissed.  We find that Evans’ petition manifestly fails to 
invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in 2007, Evans was found guilty by 
a Superior Court jury of Assault in the Second Degree, two counts of Possession of 
a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, Aggravated Menacing and 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
Resisting Arrest.  This Court affirmed Evans’ convictions on direct appeal.2  Since 
that time, Evans has filed two postconviction motions.  His appeal of the Superior 
Court’s denial of the second motion is currently on appeal in this Court.3 
 
(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 writ; b) no other adequate remedy is available; and c) the trial 
court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.5  This Court will not issue 
a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, 
to decide a matter in a particular way or to dictate control of its docket.6  Nor may 
the petitioner use a petition for a writ of mandamus to short circuit the regular 
appellate process.7 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.  
Evans has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform a duty owed to him, only that the Superior Court did not decide 
his motion for postconviction relief in the manner he wanted.  Evans’ appeal from 
the Superior Court decision that is the subject of his instant petition is currently 
                                                 
2 Evans v. State, 2009 WL 367728 (Del. Feb. 13, 2009). 
3 Evans v. State, No. 166, 2013. 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
7 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
 
3
pending in this Court. Evans may not be permitted to short circuit the ordinary 
appellate process by means of a petition for a writ of mandamus. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Evans’ petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice