Title: Matter of Love a.k.a. Demby
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 37, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 19, 2003

Corrected Page, March 24, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RAHEEM LOVE
§
No.  37, 2003
a/k/a RAYMOND DEMBY FOR
§
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
§
Def.  ID No. 9511007512
Submitted: February 19, 2003
Decided:
March 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of mandamus filed by Raheem Love and the answer and motion to dismiss
filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In 1996, a Superior Court jury convicted Raheem Love of the
charge of Delivery of Cocaine.  The Superior Court sentenced Love to thirty
years at Level V, suspended after fifteen years for fifteen years at a Supervision
IV halfway house or residential drug treatment program, suspended after
successful completion of recommended drug treatment for probation.
(2)
Love filed a motion for postconviction relief in May 1998 and
again in October 1999.  The Superior Court denied both of those motions.
Love did not appeal either decision.  In November 2002, Love filed another
motion for postconviction relief.  The motion for postconviction relief was
1In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994)
2In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
3See In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999) (determining that passage of four
months since a postconviction motion was referred to a Superior Court judge was not
evidence of an arbitrary refusal or failure to rule on the motion).
2
referred to the trial judge on November 26, 2002.  The motion has not been
decided.
(3)
Love seeks to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an
extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to rule on his
pending motion for postconviction relief.  Love’s petition must be denied.
(4)
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.1  Mandamus will not issue to
dictate the control of a trial court’s docket, except upon a showing of an
arbitrary refusal to act.2  The passage of approximately three and one-half
months since the referral of Love’s postconviction motion to the Superior Court
trial judge does not indicate the judge’s arbitrary refusal or failure to act on the
motion.3
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Love’s petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Joseph T. Walsh  
            Justice