Title: Matter of Epperson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 55, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF KEVIN S. 
 
§   No. 55, 2004 
EPPERSON FOR A WRIT OF  
§ 
MANDAMUS 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 3, 2004 
  Decided:  March 30, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of March 2004, upon consideration of Kevin Epperson=s 
petition for a writ of mandamus and the State=s response thereto, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
Epperson has filed a petition requesting this Court to issue an 
extraordinary writ of mandamus directed to the Superior Court Prothonotary.   
Epperson appears to assert that the Prothonotary in New Castle County did not 
properly docket a postconviction motion that Epperson filed in that court in 
2003.  Epperson has made similar allegations in similar petitions that this Court 
has previously denied.1  In his present petition, Epperson asserts that the 
Superior Court has never docketed a petition he filed for postconviction relief 
                                                           
1 See In re Epperson, Del. Supr., No. 549, 2003, Holland, J. (Feb. 25, 2004); In re 
Epperson, Del. Supr., No. 453, 2003, Holland, J. (Nov. 4, 2003). 
 
 
-2-
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal 61.  We conclude that the petition has no 
merit. 
(2) 
Epperson was convicted in 1996, in Criminal Action Numbers 
IN94-08-1484 and –1485, and sentenced as an habitual offender to 52 years 
imprisonment followed by probation.  Since that time, Epperson has filed 
countless petitions for postconviction relief and for extraordinary writs under 
several different Superior Court Criminal Action Numbers.  In Criminal Action 
Number IN94-08-1484, Epperson has filed no less than six postconviction 
motions, all of which were denied by Superior Court.  In fact, the docket in that 
case reflects that Epperson filed a document entitled “Motion Under Nunc Pro 
Tunc” on August 28, 2003, which the Superior Court denied on September 16, 
2003.  To the extent Epperson is claiming that he filed in 2003, another motion 
in that case, that the Prothonotary has not docketed, he has provided no 
evidence to support that assertion. 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue 
only if there is no other available remedy and the petitioner can establish that 
the trial court has arbitrarily refused to perform a duty to which the petitioner 
has a clear legal right.2   Epperson has offered no evidence to substantiate his 
                                                           
2 In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807 (Del. 1994). 
 
 
-3-
claim that the Prothonotary has refused to docket any of his numerous filings.  
Accordingly, there is no basis for this Court to issue an extraordinary writ of 
mandamus.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Epperson’s petition for the 
issuance of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice