Title: Matter of Boston

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF MICHAEL 
BOSTON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
 
§   
§  No. 163, 2012  
§ 
§   
 
                                         Submitted: April 2, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 5, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of April 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Michael Boston, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to rule on his motion for postconviction relief.  The State 
of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Boston’s petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Boston’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 July 1992, Boston was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of two counts of Assault in the Third 
Degree, one count of Attempted Assault in the First Degree and related 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
weapon charges.  This Court affirmed Boston’s convictions on direct 
appeal.2 
 
(3) 
The Superior Court docket reflects the following.  Boston filed 
his first motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61 on June 10, 2010.  The motion was referred to a Commissioner, who 
requested that Boston’s counsel file an affidavit to rebut Boston’s claims of 
ineffective assistance of counsel.  The Commissioner ultimately 
recommended that the motion be denied.  Boston subsequently filed 
objections to the Commissioner’s report and recommendation.  The Superior 
Court docket reflects that the Superior Court adopted the recommendation of 
the Commissioner and denied Boston’s motion on December 3, 2010.   
 
(4) 
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 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.4   
                                                 
2 Boston v. State, Del. Supr., No. 463, 1992, Holland, J. (Oct. 20, 1993). 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
 
3
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Boston’s petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior 
Court to decide his postconviction motion is moot in light of the Superior 
Court’s December 3, 2010 order.5  The petition must, therefore, be 
dismissed.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Boston’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
5 Crescent/Mach I Partners, L.P. v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Texas, 962 A.2d 205, 208 
(Del. 2008).