Title: Matter of Grayson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 357, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 21, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF WILLIS GRAYSON, 
JR. FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
OR CERTIORARI 
§ 
§  No. 357, 2010 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 29, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 21, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of September 2010, upon consideration of the petition of Willis 
Grayson for an extraordinary writ of mandamus or certiorari, it appears to the 
Court that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, Willis Grayson, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari1 to compel the 
Superior Court to provide him with copies of the transcripts of his first trial, which 
resulted in a mistrial, and the trial court’s written decision granting the mistrial.  
Grayson also requests that the Superior Court be compelled to hold an evidentiary 
hearing and appoint him counsel.  The State of Delaware has filed a response and 
motion to dismiss Grayson’s petition.  We find that Grayson’s petition manifestly 
                                                 
1 Given the nature of the relief sought in Grayson’s petition, the Court will treat his 
petition as a request for a writ of mandamus. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy 
that is used to correct irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.  In re Butler, 609 A.2d 
1080, 1081 (Del. 1992).  Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to compel a trial court to 
provide a petitioner with transcripts. See id. 
 
 
- 2 - 
fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition 
must be dismissed. 
(2) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when the 
petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other 
adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to 
perform its duty.2  In this case, Grayson clearly has an adequate remedy available 
to him in the postconviction process.  He may request from the Superior Court the 
transcripts that he seeks in conjunction with the filing of a motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  He also may request 
the appointment of counsel and a hearing on his postconviction motion.  If 
Grayson is unsuccessful on the merits of his postconviction motion, then he may 
appeal to this Court from the Superior Court’s final order denying relief, which 
will bring up any interlocutory rulings for review, as well.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Grayson’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Middlebrook v. State, 2000 WL 975060 (Del. May 30, 2000).