Title: Vincent v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

See Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 6611 (2003 & Supp. 2004) (providing definition of and
1
penalty for maintenance of fire hazard).
State v. Vincent, Del. Ct. Com. Pl., Def. ID No. 0512015642, Clark, J. (March 6,
2
2006).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND L. VINCENT,
§
§
No.  232, 2006
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for Sussex County 
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
C.A. No. 06A-04-004
Appellee.
§
Submitted: June 29, 2006
Decided:
September 26, 2006
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 26   day of September 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On March 6, 2006, after a bench trial in the Sussex County Court
of Common Pleas, the appellant, Raymond L. Vincent, was found guilty of
Maintaining a Fire Hazard  and was sentenced to five days in prison suspended
1
for six months of probation.   Vincent appealed the conviction to the Superior
2
Vincent v. State, Del. Super. Ct., Def. ID No. 0512015642, Graves, J. (April 13,
3
2006) (citing  Del.  Const.  art. IV, § 28; Del. Code Ann.  tit. 11, § 5301(c) (2001) (providing
for right of appeal to Superior Court from criminal conviction in Court of Common Pleas
when prison sentence imposed exceeds thirty days).
In re Bass, 1992 WL 183105 (Del. Supr.) (citing In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620
4
(Del. 1988); Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 438 (Del. 1977)).
Id.   
5
Hurst v. State, 2003 WL 21810821 (Del. Supr.) (citing Goldstein v. City of
6
Wilmington, 598 A.2d149, 152 (Del. 1991)).
2
Court.  By order dated April 13, 2006, the Superior Court dismissed the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.3
(2)
On April 24, 2006, Vincent filed a petition in the Superior Court
seeking extraordinary relief, i.e., the issuance of writs of certiorari and
mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas.  By order dated May 3, 2006, the
Superior Court dismissed Vincent’s petition.  This appeal followed.
(3)
Writs of certiorari and mandamus are extraordinary remedies that
are available in limited circumstances and when no other adequate remedy is
available.    Mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner can show that he has
4
the clear right to an action that the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to
perform.   In certiorari, review is generally confined to jurisdictional matters,
5
errors of law or procedural irregularities that are manifest on the record.   In
6
In re Bass, 1992 WL 183105 (Del. Supr.) (citing In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620
7
(Del. 1988); Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 438 (Del. 1977)).
3
both certiorari and mandamus, the reviewing may not direct that the trial court
decide a matter in a particular way.7
(4)
It is manifest on the face of Vincent’s opening brief that this
appeal is without merit.  Vincent’s petition for extraordinary relief challenged
the Court of Common Pleas’ denial of his “motion for unlawful arrest” and
asked the Superior Court to overturn his conviction.  The Superior Court
properly dismissed the petition after concluding that the record did not manifest
a jurisdictional issue,  procedural irregularity or error or that the Court of
Common Pleas had failed or refused to perform a duty owed to Vincent.
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs
          
        Justice