Title: Matter of Cannon

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF JAMARR CANNON FOR A WRIT 
§  No. 114, 2018 
OF MANDAMUS  
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 14, 2018 
  Decided: March 16, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of March 2018, upon consideration of the petition of Jamarr 
Cannon for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Jamarr Cannon, was convicted on January 29, 2018 of 
multiple drug offenses following a bench trial.  His sentencing is currently scheduled 
for March 28, 2018.  He filed this petition seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to make 
additional findings related to its February 15, 2018 Order denying Cannon’s motion 
for reconsideration of its denial of his suppression motion.  The State has filed a 
motion to dismiss Cannon’s petition on the ground that it manifestly fails to invoke 
this Court’s original jurisdiction.  We agree. 
(2) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a trial court to perform a 
duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the 
duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that the trial court has 
2 
 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1  A writ of mandamus will not be 
issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a 
matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket.”2   
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the present circumstances 
because Cannon cannot establish that the Superior Court has arbitrarily refused to 
perform a duty owed to him and that he has no other adequate remedy.  Once Cannon 
is sentenced, then he may appeal to this Court from the Superior Court’s final 
judgment, which will bring up any interlocutory rulings for review, including the 
denial of his suppression motion.3  This Court has no jurisdiction to review an 
interlocutory order in a criminal case.4  Cannon cannot use the extraordinary writ 
process to overcome that constitutional hurdle. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
                                                 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
2 Id. 
3 Middlebrook v. State, 2000 WL 975060 (Del. May 30, 2000). 
4 DEL. CONST. art IV, § 11(1)(b).