Title: Matter of Biggins
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 46, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 15, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§ 
 
PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR  
§  
No. 46, 2014  
BIGGINS FOR A WRIT OF 
§ 
CERTIORARI. 
§   
 
 
 
Submitted: February 20, 2014 
Decided:  
April 15, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 15th day of April 2014, upon consideration of the petition for a 
writ of certiorari filed by James Arthur Biggins and the answer and motion 
to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, James Arthur Biggins, is serving a thirty-year 
sentence imposed in 1997 for convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse 
and related offenses.  Following an unsuccessful direct appeal in 1999,1 
Biggins has unsuccessfully challenged his convictions under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61 a total of seven times.2  Biggins has also filed unsuccessful 
                                
1 Biggins v. State, 1999 WL 1192332 (Del. Nov. 24, 1999). 
2 See Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214 (Del. July 11, 2011) (affirming denial of 
seventh postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 199114 (Del. Jan. 19, 2011) 
(affirming denial of sixth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2010 WL 892106 
(Del. Mar. 11, 2010) (affirming denial of fifth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 
2009 WL 1847663 (Del. June 29, 2009) (dismissing untimely appeal from denial of 
fourth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2003 WL 22998846 (Del. Dec. 18, 2003) 
(affirming denial of third postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2001 WL 760859 
2 
 
petitions purporting to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction over his 
criminal case.3 
(2) 
In his pending petition for a writ of certiorari, Biggins purports 
to seek relief for an alleged error the Superior Court made when instructing 
the jury on lesser-included offenses at Biggins’ jury trial.  The petition 
manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court and must be 
dismissed. 
(3) 
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to 
correct irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.4  Certiorari is 
available to challenge only a final order of a trial court where the right of 
appeal is denied, a grave question of public policy and interest is involved, 
and no other basis for review is available.5  “Where these threshold 
requirements are not met, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the 
petitioner’s claims.”6 
                                                                                             
 
(May 19, 2001) (affirming denial of second postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 
2000 WL 1504868 (Del. Sept. 26, 2000) (affirming denial of first postconviction motion).  
3 See In re Biggins, 2010 WL 2696531 (Del. July 8, 2010) (dismissing petition for a writ 
of certiorari); In re Biggins, 2003 WL 1857525 (Del. April 7, 2003) (dismissing petition 
for a writ of prohibition).  
4 Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977). 
5 Id. at 437-38. 
6 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
3 
 
(4) 
In this case, Biggins has not demonstrated that his right of 
appeal was denied, a grave question of public policy is involved, or that no 
other basis for review is available.  As such, he has not met the threshold 
requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari by this Court and, 
therefore, his petition for a writ of certiorari must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is 
DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice