Title: Matter of Gregory
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 220, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§ 
 
PETITION OF WILLIAM  
§  
No. 220, 2015 
  
GREGORY FOR A WRIT OF   
§  
  
MANDAMUS. 
§   
 
 
 
Submitted: May 19, 2015 
Decided:  
July 9, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of July 2015, upon consideration of the petition for a writ 
of mandamus filed by William Gregory and the answer and motion to 
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 26, 2014, William Gregory filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his third motion for postconviction relief 
(hereinafter “the Appeal”).  The Appeal, which is now closed, proceeded as 
Gregory v. State, No. 463, 2014.  The Panel of the Court assigned to 
consider the Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in an Order 
dated January 12, 2015 (hereinafter “the January 12 Order”). 
(2) 
On January 28, 2015, at the conclusion of the fifteen-day period 
for filing a motion for reargument or motion for rehearing en Banc, the 
Clerk issued the mandate in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 19(a).  
The original mandate, including a certified copy of the January 12 Order, 
2 
 
was sent to the Superior Court.  Copies were sent to the parties.  With the 
issuance of the mandate, the Appeal was closed. 
(3) 
On February 6, 2015, Gregory filed a motion seeking a twenty-
day extension of time to file a motion for rehearing en Banc in the Appeal.   
In support of his motion, Gregory explained that he had not received the 
January 12 Order until January 31, 2015, when he received his copy of the 
mandate.  On February 6, 2015, the Clerk sent Gregory a copy of the docket 
sheet.  The docket sheet indicated that the Appeal was closed, and that no 
action would be taken on the motion for extension of time. 
(4) 
Undeterred, Gregory filed a motion for rehearing en Banc in the 
Appeal.  In a letter, Gregory asserted that he did not receive the January 12 
Order in a timely fashion, and he asked that the Court consider the motion 
for rehearing.  A few days later, Gregory made a similar request in a 
document entitled “praecipe.”  By letter dated February 20, 2015, the Clerk 
advised Gregory that the Appeal was closed when the mandate issued, and 
on February 23, 2015, the Clerk sent Gregory another copy of the docket 
sheet. 
(5) 
On April 15, 2015, Gregory filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus.  In the petition, Gregory asked the Court to compel the Clerk to 
process the “praecipe” and accept the motion for rehearing en Banc.  The 
3 
 
mandamus petition was docketed in the Appeal.  By letter dated April 15, 
2015, the Clerk informed Gregory that the Court had stricken the petition as 
inappropriately filed. 
(6) 
On May 1, 2015, Gregory filed the above-captioned petition for 
a writ of mandamus.  The petition was docketed as an original action under 
Supreme Court Rule 43.  In the petition, Gregory asks the Court to compel 
the Clerk to process the “praecipe” and accept the motion for rehearing en 
Banc. 
(7) 
On May 19, 2015, Counsel for the State moved to dismiss the 
petition on the basis that the Court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of 
mandamus to itself or to its Clerk.  In an answer to the petition, Counsel 
notes that he spoke to the Department of Correction about Gregory’s legal 
mail log between January 11, 2015 and February 10, 2015.  Counsel reports 
that “[a]lthough it appears that Gregory received a mailing from this Court 
on January 31, 2015, undersigned counsel cannot confirm that Gregory 
received any mailing from this Court prior to that date.” 
(8) 
The Court has carefully considered Gregory’s petition for a writ 
of mandamus, the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, and the Court’s 
record in the Appeal.  The Court finds that, due to court error or other reason 
not attributable to Gregory, Gregory did not receive the January 12 Order 
4 
 
until January 31, 2015.  By then, the time for filing a motion for rehearing 
had expired.  Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Gregory 
has established good cause to consider the motion for rehearing en Banc.*  
Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk to recall the mandate in the 
Appeal.  Once the mandate is recalled, the Court will consider the motion for 
rehearing en Banc filed on February 20, 2015. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket a 
copy of this Order in the Appeal, Gregory v. State, No. 463, 2014, and take 
further action consistent with this Order.  Gregory’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED as moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                
* Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979) (“Because defendant did all that was required of 
him in seeking review; and because his default has been occasioned by court related 
personnel; his petition for review will not be denied.”)