Title: Matter of Watson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 120, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 27, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF KEAVNEY L.
WATSON FOR A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION.
  No. 120, 2001
Submitted: March 29, 2001
Decided:
April 27, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
  
O R D E R
This 27th day of April 2001, upon consideration of the pro se petition
for a writ of prohibition filed by Keavney L. Watson and the answer and
motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court
that:
(1)
In September 1999, Watson was arrested by the State police in
an undercover drug operation.  As a result of that arrest, Watson was
charged by grand jury indictment with two offenses:  possession with
intent to deliver a non-narcotic controlled substance and possession of drug
paraphernalia.
(2)
In June 2000, Watson was convicted in the Superior Court of
the lesser-included offense of possession of a non-narcotic controlled
substance as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.  Watson was
2
sentenced, in August 2000, to a total of three years imprisonment,
suspended upon completion of a prison drug treatment program, for the
balance of the term in residential drug treatment and on probation.
Watson’s direct appeal is pending in this Court, where he is represented by
counsel.1
(3)
In his petition for a writ of prohibition, Watson claims that the
undercover police officers who arrested him acted outside of their “job
jurisdiction.”  Watson appears to argue that, as a result of the illegal
arrest, he should be relieved from all foreseeable consequences of the
arrest including:  (i) his June 2000 Superior Court drug conviction that is
currently on appeal in this Court; (ii) a related February 2000 Superior
Court conviction of violation of probation; (iii) a November 1999 Superior
Court conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle; (iv) an October 1999
Family Court guilty plea to theft; and (v) various fines imposed in the
Court of Common Pleas.  It is clear that Watson’s petition for a writ of
prohibition must be dismissed.
(4)
A writ of prohibition may be issued to prevent a trial court
from proceeding in a matter when it has no jurisdiction or to prevent the
                                                  
1 Watson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 422, 2000.
3
court from exceeding its jurisdiction in a matter that is properly before it.2
In his Superior Court and Family Court cases, Watson has been charged,
tried (or pleaded guilty), and convicted.  Consequently, Watson’s petition
to prevent the criminal proceedings against him in those cases comes too
late.  Moreover, a petition for a writ of prohibition issuable to the Court of
Common Pleas must be first presented to, and denied by, the Superior
Court.3
(5)
The writ of prohibition is used to grant relief when the
traditional appeal route is unavailable or will not provide an adequate
remedy at law.4  It is not available for use as a substitute for the ordinary
appellate process.5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s
motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  Watson’s petition for a writ of
prohibition is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                  
2 In re Hovey, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 626, 628 (1988).
3 See Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(vi).
4 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d at 628.
5 Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del. Supr., 214 A.2d 883, 885 (1965).