Title: Matter of Flowers

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
 
§ 
PETITION OF GEARL T.  
 
§ 
No. 451, 2011 
FLOWERS FOR A WRIT OF  
§ 
MANDAMUS. 
 
 
 
§  
Cr. ID No. 1008025982 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 6, 2011 
Decided:   September 9, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the petition and 
amended petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Gearl T. Flowers and the 
answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
In January 2011, a Superior Court jury convicted the petitioner, 
Gearl T. Flowers, of Burglary in the Third Degree and Theft.  In March 
2011, Flowers filed pro se motions for a new trial and for the appointment of 
[new] counsel (hereinafter “Flowers’ motions”).  Flowers’ sentencing has 
been continued pending the Superior Court’s disposition of Flowers’ 
motions. 
(2) 
On August 24, 2011 Flowers filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus in this Court.  On August 30, 2011, Flowers filed a second 
petition for a writ of mandamus.  Flowers’ second mandamus petition was 
2 
 
deemed to be an amendment to the mandamus petition he filed six days 
earlier (hereinafter “Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus petitions”).   
(3) 
Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus petitions concern the 
Superior Court’s proceedings on Flowers’ motions.  In the aggregate, 
Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus petitions ask the Court to reverse his 
convictions, appoint him new counsel, grant him unsecured bail and direct 
that his current defense counsel review his trial. 
(4) 
Flowers sought similar relief in prior mandamus petitions that 
he filed in July 2011 (hereinafter “Flowers’ July 2011 mandamus petitions”).  
By Order dated August 16, 2011, the Court dismissed Flowers’ July 2011 
mandamus petitions.1 
(5) 
As we explained in our August 16, 2011 Order dismissing 
Flowers’ July 2011 mandamus petitions, a writ of mandamus is an 
extraordinary remedy issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform 
a duty.2  Relief is granted only when a mandamus petitioner demonstrates, 
among other things, that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to 
perform a duty owed to the petitioner.3 
                                            
1 In re Flowers, 2011 WL 3610126 (Del. Supr.). 
2 Id. (citing In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988)). 
3 Id. 
3 
 
(6) 
The Court concludes that Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus 
petitions fail to demonstrate that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform a duty owed to Flowers.  The Superior Court is 
continuing to conduct proceedings on Flowers’ motions.  It is not this 
Court’s function to compel the Superior Court to decide Flowers’ motions in 
a particular way.4 
(7) 
To the extent Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus petitions seek a 
writ directed to his defense counsel, the petitions manifestly fail to invoke 
the Court’s jurisdiction.  The Court has authority to issue a writ of 
mandamus to courts and judges.5  The Court has no authority to issue a writ 
of mandamus to the petitioner’s defense counsel. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  Flowers’ August 2011 mandamus petitions are 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                            
4 Id. 
5 See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5) (establishing Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs 
of prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari and mandamus to courts and judges).