Title: In the Matter of the Petition of Kenneth Deputy for a Writ of Mandamus
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 374, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF KENNETH 
DEPUTY FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
 
§   
§ No. 374, 2022 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 26, 2022 
Decided:  December 6, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the State’s answer 
and motion to dismiss, and the request for leave to file a reply to the answer and 
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Kenneth Deputy, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court and requests that we issue a writ of mandamus under 
Supreme Court Rule 43 directing the Superior Court to hear his motion to dismiss 
counsel and to appoint new counsel.  We conclude that the petition is without merit 
and must therefore be dismissed. 
(2) 
In August 2022 a grand jury charged Deputy with first-degree 
kidnapping and other crimes.1  At the request of Deputy’s appointed counsel from 
the Office of Defense Services, the Superior Court conducted a pro se colloquy with 
Deputy on September 22, 2022.   Deputy stated that he did not want to proceed pro 
 
1 The Court has taken judicial notice of the docket in Cr. ID No. 2203006017. 
 
2 
se, but wanted to present his motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint new counsel.  
The Superior Court advised Deputy that counsel from the Office of Defense Service 
would continue to represent him unless he obtained private counsel.  The Superior 
Court has forwarded Deputy’s subsequent pro se filings to his counsel under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 47. 
(3) 
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Deputy asks this Court to direct 
the Superior Court to consider his motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint new 
counsel.    
(4) 
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) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.2  “[I]n the 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) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.  
Deputy does not have a right to the appointment of counsel of his choice.4  In 
 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 See, e.g., In re Edwards, 2007 WL 44049, at *1 (Del. Jan. 8, 2007) (holding there was no basis 
for mandamus relief where the petitioner sought removal of his counsel and appointment of new 
counsel); In re Brown, 2000 WL 1508611, at *1 (Del. Sept. 11, 2000) (denying the petitioner’s 
request for an order compelling the Superior Court to dismiss his current counsel and appoint new 
 
3 
addition, Deputy has adequate remedies available to him.  If convicted, Deputy can 
advance his claim that the Superior Court should have considered his pro se motions 
on direct appeal.5  Similarly, if convicted, Deputy may challenge his counsel’s 
representation in postconviction proceedings.6  Deputy’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED.  The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
counsel); In re Deputy, 1998 WL 171077, at *1 (Del. Mar. 20, 1998) (recognizing that an indigent 
person has a right to appointed counsel, but not a right to counsel of his choice). 
5 In re Shackelford, 2022 WL 321139, at *1 (Del. Feb. 2, 2022). 
6 Id.