Title: Matter of Brown

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

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. 505, 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 Superior Court to deliver to him items he characterizes as “discovery 
material” in Criminal Identification Number 0401017178.  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 March 2005, Brown was found 
guilty by a Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Second Degree, Theft, 
Criminal Mischief, and Receiving Stolen Property in connection with three 
burglaries in Dover, Delaware.  This Court affirmed Brown’s convictions 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
and sentences on direct appeal.2  This Court also affirmed the Superior 
Court’s denial of Brown’s motion for postconviction relief.3  In his instant 
petition, Brown specifically requests copies of the search warrant for his 
Dover residence, his co-defendant’s arrest records, his grand jury 
indictment, his plea agreement, and his trial witness list. 
 
(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.  There is no support, factual or legal, for the proposition that the 
Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty clearly 
owed to Brown---that is, to order discovery in a case no longer pending 
before it.  In the absence of any such support, Brown’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus must be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
2 Brown v. State, 897 A.2d 748 (Del. 2006). 
3 Brown v. State, Del. Supr., No. 578, 2008, Berger, J. (July 6, 2009). 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Brown’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice