Title: Matter of Franklin

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN 
THE 
MATTER 
OF 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
JOHN 
M. 
FRANKLIN FOR A WRIT OF 
PROHIBITION 
§ 
§  No. 414, 2011 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 16, 2011 
Decided:  October 14, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of October 2011, upon consideration of the petition of 
John Franklin for the issuance of an extraordinary writ of prohibition and the 
State’s response and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, John Franklin, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court by requesting that an extraordinary writ of 
prohibition be issued to the Superior Court.  Franklin contends that the 
Superior Court exceeded its jurisdiction in his case by allowing the State to 
pursue criminal charges against him without filing an indictment. 
Apparently, he requests that this Court issue a judgment of acquittal in his 
case.  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to dismiss Franklin’s 
petition. 
(2) 
Franklin was convicted in 2004, following a Superior Court 
jury trial, of first degree rape and related charges.  His convictions and 
 
2
sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1  In 2006, Franklin 
filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging, among other things, 
ineffective assistance of counsel.  The Superior Court denied the motion, and 
this Court affirmed that decision.2  Franklin filed a second, unsuccessful 
petition for postconviction relief in 2007.  This Court again affirmed the 
Superior Court’s denial of relief.3 
(3) 
Franklin now has filed this writ of prohibition alleging that the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he never properly 
waived his right to be indicted.  Franklin also alleges that his appointed 
counsel was ineffective and that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal 
because he is actually innocent.  The State contends that Franklin’s petition 
should be dismissed because it fails to invoke this Court’s original 
jurisdiction.  We agree. 
(4) 
A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable 
remedy of injunction and may be issued to prevent a lower court from 
exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.4  It enjoins a court from future action 
                                                 
1 Franklin v. State, 2005 WL 528674 (Del. Mar. 2, 2005) 
2 Franklin v. State, 2006 WL 1374675 (Del. May 17, 2006). 
3 Franklin v. State, 2008 WL 361143 (Del. Feb. 12, 2008). 
4 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). 
 
3
and is not appropriate in a case like Franklin’s where a final judgment 
already has been issued.5  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for an extraordinary writ is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
5 In re Carter, 2008 WL 5061144 (Del. Dec. 1, 2008).