IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF CEDRIC D. 

SHACKELFORD FOR A WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

§ 

§ No. 369, 2021 

§ 

§

 Submitted: November 29, 2021 

 Decided: February 2, 2022 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices. 

ORDER

After careful consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the 

State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) The petitioner, Cedric Shackelford, seeks to invoke the original 

jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus 

directing the Superior Court to investigate his attorney’s professional performance 

and to rule on two motions that Shackelford filed in that court in connection with a 

criminal case currently pending against him. The State has filed an answer and 

motion to dismiss the petition. After careful review, we conclude that the petition is 

without merit and must be dismissed. 

(2) Shackelford was arrested for various crimes arising out of an August 

15, 2019 armed robbery. Shackelford qualified for the assistance of the Office of 

Defense Services, and an assistant public defender was appointed to represent him. 

Although he was represented by counsel, Shackelford filed various pro se motions 
2 

with the Superior Court, including a motion to disqualify counsel in which he 

complained about the responsiveness and strategic decisions of his court-appointed 

attorney and requested the appointment of a new attorney. The Superior Court 

declined to take any action on the motion, noted that Shackelford does not have a 

constitutional right to the court-appointed attorney of his choosing, and forwarded 

the motion to defense counsel. Later, Shackelford filed a motion to participate with 

counsel, which the Superior Court likewise forwarded to defense counsel. Notably, 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 47 provides, in part, that the Superior Court “will not 

consider pro se applications made by defendants who are represented by counsel 

unless the defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the 

defense.”1 

(3) A writ of mandamus will issue to a trial court only if the petitioner can 

show: (i) a clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy 

is available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 

its duty.2 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to 

act, 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.”3

1

 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 47. 

2

In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 

3

Id.
3 

(4) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus under the 

circumstances presented here because Shackelford has other adequate remedies 

available to him. If convicted, Shackelford may advance his claim that the Superior 

Court should have ruled on his pro se motions on direct appeal.4 Similarly, if 

convicted, Shackelford may challenge his counsel’s professional performance in 

postconviction proceedings.5 In the alternative, if Shackelford wishes to proceed 

pro se, he may petition the court to do that. But a petitioner who has an adequate 

remedy in the appellate process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a 

substitute.6 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is 

DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice

4

In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016, at *1 (Del. July 1, 2005). 

5 See generally Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160, 175 (Del. 2020). 

6

In re Safford, 2005 WL 1654016, at *1.