Title: Matter of Kostyshyn
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 91, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 27, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
 
§ 
PETITION OF PETER T. 
 
§ 
No. 91, 2011 
KOSTYSHYN FOR A WRIT OF 
§ 
MANDAMUS. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 15, 2011 
Decided:  
April 27, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of April 2011, upon consideration of the petition for a 
writ of mandamus filed by Peter T. Kostyshyn and the answer and motion to 
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Peter T. Kostyshyn, has filed a petition for a 
writ of mandamus to be directed to the Superior Court regarding three 
criminal cases.  One case concerns Kostyshyn’s sister’s conviction in the 
Court of Common Pleas.1  The other two cases concern Kostyshyn’s 
conviction in the Court of Common Pleas, which was appealed to the 
Superior Court and then dismissed,2 and Kostyshyn’s Superior Court 
conviction, which is currently the subject of a direct appeal in this Court.3  
Collectively, Kostyshyn seeks mandamus relief in the form of his release 
                                            
1 State v. Patricia Kostyshyn, Del. Com Pl., Cr. ID No. 0902010157.  
2 See docket at 17, State v. Peter Kostyshyn, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0902010151, (Feb. 
10, 2011) (order dismissing). 
3 See docket at 1, Peter Kostyshyn v. State, Del. Supr., No. 71, 2011, (Feb. 14, 2011) 
(filing appeal from Superior Court conviction and sentencing in Cr. ID No. 0908020496). 
2 
 
from prison, the appointment of counsel, and an investigation to correct 
“miscarriages of justice and abuses and manipulations of the Courts.” 
(2) 
This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to the Superior Court 
only if the petitioner can show that he or she has a clear right to the 
performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy, and that the Superior 
Court has arbitrarily failed or required to perform the duty.4  Kostyshyn has 
not demonstrated a basis for mandamus relief with respect to any of the 
cases referred to in his petition. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  Kostyshyn’s petition for a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
                                            
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).