Title: Matter of Coleman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 111, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF DEVIN COLEMAN 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§   
§ No. 111, 2015 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 11, 2015 
Decided: 
April 6, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of April 2015, upon consideration of the petition of Devin 
Coleman for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Devin Coleman, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 
mandamus compelling the Superior Court to review a motion for postconviction 
relief that he filed in September 2014.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer 
and motion to dismiss Coleman’s petition.  After careful review, we find that 
Coleman’s petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
(2) 
On June 17, 2014, Coleman pled guilty to five charges arising from 
two different indictments.  Coleman was sentenced to fifteen years of Level V 
 
2 
incarceration, suspended after eight years for one year of Level III probation.  This 
Court dismissed Coleman’s untimely appeal of the Superior Court’s judgment.1 
(3) 
On September 8, 2014, Coleman filed his first motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court 
has not ruled on that motion.  The Superior Court docket reflects that since 
September 2014 the Superior Court has decided two motions for correction of 
sentence and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Coleman.  The Superior 
Court docket also reflects that Coleman filed a motion to amend his motion for 
postconviction relief and a motion for summary judgment on his motion for 
postconviction relief on March 2, 2015.  Coleman filed another amended motion 
for postconviction relief to replace his September 2014 motion for postconviction 
relief on April 2, 2015.   
(4) 
On March 6, 2015, Coleman filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
this Court.  In the petition, Coleman asks this Court to order the Superior Court to 
review his September 2014 motion for postconviction relief within sixty days.  A 
writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a clear right to the 
performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the 
Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.2  “[I]n the 
                                                 
1 Coleman v. State, 2014 WL 4629376 (Del. Sept. 16, 2014). 
 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
3 
absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, this Court will 
not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial 
function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its 
docket.”3   
(5) 
The passage of six months, especially in light of the amended motions 
for postconviction relief that Coleman filed in March and April, does not constitute 
an arbitrary failure or refusal to act by the Superior Court.4  Because Coleman has 
failed to show that he is entitled the issuance of a writ of mandamus, his petition 
must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of 
a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 Id. 
4 See, e.g., In re Johnson, 2007 WL 3121509, at *1 (Del. Oct. 25, 2007) (dismissing petition for 
writ of mandamus based on motion for modification of sentence that had been pending in 
Superior Court for five months).