Title: Matter of Jones
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 552, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 7, 2001

1State v.  Jones, Del.  Super., Cr.A. Nos.  IS01-04-0617W, 0618W. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF SANDRA JONES
§
No.  552, 2001
FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION.
§
Submitted: November 20, 2001
Decided:
December 7, 2001
BEFORE VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the petition of
Sandra Jones for a writ of prohibition and the State’s answer and motion to
dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In April 2001, a grand jury indicted Sandra Jones on the charges
of Felony Theft and Financial Exploitation of an Infirm Adult.1  On July 2,
2001, the Superior Court dismissed the indictment without prejudice.  In
September 2001, a grand jury returned a superceding indictment on the same
charges.  Jones is proceeding pro se in the Superior Court.  Her trial is
scheduled to begin on December 11, 2001.
(2)
Jones has applied for a writ of prohibition to prevent any further
action in the pending criminal case.  Jones contends that the Superior Court
is without jurisdiction to try her on charges that the Court previously
2In re Hovey, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 626, 629(1988).
3Id. at 628.
4Id.
5Id. at 629.
6Id. at 628.
7Id. at 629.
2
dismissed.  The decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of prohibition
in a criminal case rests within the sound discretion of this Court.2 
(3)
A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable
remedy of injunction and may be issued to prevent a trial court from
proceeding in a matter when it has no jurisdiction or is exceeding its
jurisdiction.3  The jurisdictional defect alleged by the petitioner must be
manifest from the record.4  Moreover, “the petitioner has the burden of
demonstrating to this Court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the action
contemplated by the trial court is in excess of its jurisdiction.”5  
(4)
The Court will not issue a writ of prohibition if the petitioner has
another adequate and complete remedy.6  The right to appeal a criminal
conviction is generally considered to be such an adequate and complete
remedy, unless the lack of jurisdiction is “clear and unmistakeable.”7
3
(5)
Jones has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that the Superior Court is without jurisdiction to proceed with her trial.  Jones
has been indicted by a superceding indictment on charges over which the
Superior Court has jurisdiction.  Moreover, Jones has an adequate remedy at
law for consideration of the jurisdictional claim that she has advanced in her
petition for a writ of prohibition.  Jones may raise the claim in the Superior
Court.  If she is convicted, she may reassert the claim on direct appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Jones’ petition for a writ of prohibition is
DISMISSED.  The mandate shall issue forthwith.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice