Title: Matter of Edwards
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 30, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF CHARLES 
EDWARDS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 30, 2007 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  February 7, 2007 
Decided:  March 9, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of March 2007, upon consideration of the petition of 
Charles Edwards for a writ of mandamus, as well as the State’s answer and 
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Charles Edwards, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction by requesting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to 
compel the Superior Court to act on his pending motion to withdraw his 
guilty plea.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer and motion to 
dismiss Edwards’ petition.  The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective 
positions carefully.  We find that Edwards’ petition manifestly fails to 
invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must 
be DISMISSED. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Edwards was indicted on several counts 
of rape in March 2006.  On July 7, 2006, Edwards entered a plea of no 
 
2
contest to one count of third degree rape.  Before sentencing, defense 
counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea.  Edwards, acting pro se, 
subsequently filed a second motion to withdraw.  The Superior Court passed 
on the motion and ordered preparation of the transcript of the plea colloquy. 
Thereafter, the Superior Court directed defense counsel to respond to 
Edwards’ motion and then gave Edwards an opportunity to file a reply. 
(3) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when 
the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no 
other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.1  In this case, the record reflects that, through 
January 2007, Edwards continued to file multiple letters and affidavits 
supporting his motion.  Under the circumstances, we do not find the passage 
of a few weeks evidence that the trial court has arbitrarily refused to act on 
Edwards’ motion.2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Edwards’ petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999) (noting that passage of four 
months did not establish an arbitrary refusal to act).