Title: Matter of Johnson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF RONALD G. 
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 239, 2013 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 23, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  May 30, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of June 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Ronald G. Johnson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to immediately permit him to proceed pro se in his 
criminal case and to immediately decide several pending pro se motions.  
The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Johnson’s petition 
be dismissed.  We find that Johnson’s 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 August 2012, Johnson was 
indicted on the charge of Possession of a Controlled Substance.  He was 
released on unsecured bail.  Johnson’s trial was scheduled for March 5, 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
2013.  Johnson failed to appear and the Superior Court issued a capias for 
his arrest.  The capias was returned the same day and Johnson has been held 
in lieu of $20,000 cash bail since that time. 
 
(3) 
Despite being represented by the Office of the Public Defender, 
Johnson has filed a number of pro se motions, including a motion to dismiss 
his counsel and appoint new counsel, a motion to recuse the Superior Court 
judge assigned to his case, a motion to assign a new prosecutor, a motion to 
obtain full discovery and a motion to reduce bail.   
 
(4) 
On April 4, 2013, Johnson’s counsel filed a motion for 
psychiatric/psychological evaluation to determine whether Johnson was 
competent to stand trial.  The Superior Court granted counsel’s motion.  
During April and May, 2013, Johnson filed a pro se response to the motion 
for a psychiatric/psychological evaluation and motions to reduce bail, to 
dismiss counsel, to compel an immediate hearing on his motions and to 
proceed pro se.  The Superior Court referred the motions to Johnson’s 
counsel.2 
                                                 
2 Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47, the Superior Court may not consider pro se 
applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the defendant has been 
granted permission to participate with counsel in his defense. 
 
3
 
(5) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the defendant 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.4  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 the control of its docket.5 
 
(6) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Johnson has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty to which he has a clear right.  
Moreover, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the 
Superior Court to immediately schedule and grant Johnson’s various 
motions.  Johnson’s petition for a writ of mandamus must, therefore, be 
dismissed. 
 
 
                                                 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Johnson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice