Title: Winward v. White
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 595, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 26, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRIAN J. WINWARD,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
JOHN H. WHITE, SHARON
AGNEW, and JANE DOE,
Respondents Below-
Appellees.
§
§  No. 595, 2000
§
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 00M-09-081
§
§
§
Submitted: March 7, 2001
  Decided:
March 26, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 26th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm,1 it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Brian Winward, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus.  Winward sought a writ
of mandamus directed to Superior Court personnel to compel them to provide
him with a copy of the transcript from his 1989 criminal trial.  The State of
Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a motion to affirm the judgment
                                                  
1On March 13, 2001, Winward filed a reply to the appellees’ motion to affirm.  A reply
to a motion to affirm is not permitted under Supreme Court Rule 25(a) unless requested by
the Court.  The Court did not request a reply in this case.  Therefore, Winward’s reply shall
-2-
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Winward’s
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
(2)
The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus to a State
officer, tribunal, board, or agency to compel the performance of an official
duty.2  A writ of mandamus is designed to compel the performance of an official
duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to the performance of
the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that the officer,
tribunal, board, or agency arbitrarily has failed or refused to perform its duty.3
(3)
In this case, the Superior Court denied Winward’s petition on the
ground that neither the Prothonotary nor the court reporter’s office had refused
to provide the transcript to Winward.  Having reviewed the record, we agree
with the Superior Court.  The court reporter’s letter to Winward indicates that
the court reporter’s office was having some difficulty in locating the transcript
due to the age of the case and requested Winward to provide any information he
could about the case.  The letter is not a refusal to provide the transcript, and,
in fact, states the court reporter’s office “would keep trying.”  Furthermore, as
                                                                                                                                                      
be stricken as a nonconforming document.  See Supr. Ct. R. 34.
2See 10 Del. C. § 564.
3In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). 
-3-
the Superior Court correctly noted, the transcript would not be prepared in any
event until Winward demonstrated that he, or someone on his behalf, was able
and willing to pay for the transcript preparation.  Winward offered nothing on
the record to demonstrate his ability or willingness to pay for the transcript.  As
the Superior Court noted, if Winward submits an appropriate request for
transcript and pays a deposit toward the transcript preparation, the transcript will
be prepared.  If the transcript is not prepared, then Winward may file a new
petition for a writ of mandamus.
(4)
Consequently, it is manifest on the face of Winward’s opening
brief that the appeal is without merit.  The issuance of a writ of mandamus is
within the Superior Court’s discretion, and clearly there was no abuse of judicial
discretion in this case.
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/ Randy J. Holland
Justice