Title: Matter of Watson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
PETITION OF KEAVNEY L.  
WATSON FOR A WRIT OF  
MANDAMUS 
 
§ 
§  No. 524, 2006 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Keavney L. Watson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to correct an illegal sentence imposed upon him 
for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State of Delaware, as the real 
party in interest, has filed an answer requesting that Watson’s petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Watson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed.   
 
(2) 
Watson filed two motions for correction of an illegal VOP 
sentence in the Superior Court.  On July 17, 2006 and September 6, 2006, 
the Superior Court denied Watson’s motions.  In its July 17, 2006 order, the 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
Superior Court correctly explained that, under Delaware law, it may re-
impose a previously suspended prison term upon a finding that a defendant 
has committed a VOP, as long as the sentence is within the statutory limits,2 
and that it must impose at least a six-month period of custodial supervision 
when a period of Level V incarceration totaling one year or more is imposed 
in order to facilitate the transition of the individual back into society.3  
Instead of filing a timely appeal from either of the Superior Court’s 
decisions, Watson filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.4  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Watson must demonstrate that: he has a clear right 
to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.5  “[T]his 
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.”6 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Watson has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court has 
                                                 
2 Kelly v. State, Del. Supr., No. 460, 1996, Hartnett, J. (May 23, 1997).   
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204(l). 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
 
3
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.  Moreover, a 
petition for a writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for a timely-
filed notice of appeal.7 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
7 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).