Title: Matter of Noble

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§ 
 
PETITION OF THOMAS E. 
§  
No. 513, 2014 
  
NOBLE FOR A WRIT OF   
§  
  
MANDAMUS. 
§   
 
 
 
Submitted: October 8, 2014 
Decided:  
November 6, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of November 2014, upon consideration of the petition for 
a writ of mandamus filed by Thomas E. Noble and the answer and motion to 
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In January 2014, the petitioner, Thomas E. Noble, was indicted 
on twenty-five counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.1  In February 2014, 
Noble was granted leave to proceed pro se in the Superior Court and standby 
counsel was appointed to assist him.2 
(2) 
In May 2014, the Superior Court held a hearing on a number of 
motions filed by Noble.3  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Superior 
Court continued the final case review and trial that were scheduled for June 
2 and June 10, 2014, respectively.  Thereafter, in August 2014, the Superior 
                                
1 Docket at 3, State v. Noble, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1311014361 (Jan. 6, 2014). 
2 Id.  Docket at 10 (Feb. 24, 2014). 
3 Id. Docket at 35 (May 19, 2014). 
2 
 
Court ordered that Noble undergo a psychiatric and psychological 
evaluation.4  The evaluation is pending. 
(3) 
Unhappy with the Superior Court, Noble has filed the within 
mandamus petition asking this Court to stay the Superior Court proceedings, 
grant all of his unopposed motions, reduce his bail, replace his standby 
counsel, vacate the orders issued by the judge assigned to the case, and 
appoint a different judge.  Noble has not satisfied the criteria for the issuance 
of a writ of mandamus. 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.5  Relief is granted only when 
the petitioner demonstrates that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused 
to perform a duty, and that the petitioner has no other remedy.6  This Court 
will not issue a writ of mandamus to dictate the control of a trial court 
docket or to require a trial court to decide a matter in a particular way.7  
Also, a petition for a writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for 
an appeal.8 
                                
4 Id.  Docket at 49 (Aug. 5, 2014).  
5 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
3 
 
(5) 
In his mandamus petition, Noble has not demonstrated that he 
has a clear right to the relief he seeks, e.g., a stay of the Superior Court 
proceedings, a reduction of bail, a dismissal of the indictment, a change of 
venue, different standby counsel, and a different judge assigned to his case, 
or that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty 
owed to him.  Also, Noble has not demonstrated that he is without a remedy.  
“The right to appeal a criminal conviction is generally considered a complete 
and adequate remedy to review all of the questions presented in a criminal 
proceeding.”9 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s 
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                
9 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988).