Title: Matter of DeWitt
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 332, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN 
THE 
MATTER 
OF 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
DONALD 
S. 
DeWITT 
FOR 
A 
WRIT 
OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 332, 2006 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 11, 2006 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    July 17, 2006 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 17th day of July 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Donald S. DeWitt, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to either act on his motion for postconviction relief and 
grant his immediate release or permit him to appear before the President 
Judge of the Superior Court to explain the basis for his petition.  The State of 
Delaware has filed an answer requesting that DeWitt’s petition be dismissed.  
We find that DeWitt’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED.   
 
(2) 
In February 1998, DeWitt pleaded guilty to Felony Theft and 
Extortion.  In December 2005, he filed a motion for postconviction relief in 
the Superior Court.  The Superior Court docket reflects that, following 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
briefing, the matter was submitted to a Superior Court commissioner for 
decision on April 5, 2006.  On June 13, 2006, the commissioner denied 
DeWitt’s motion for transcripts and for the appointment of counsel.   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, DeWitt must demonstrate that: he has a clear right 
to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  The record reflects that DeWitt’s motion for postconviction relief was 
submitted for decision to the Superior Court commissioner on April 5, 2006 
and that applications made by DeWitt were denied on June 13, 2006.  Under 
these circumstances, DeWitt has failed to demonstrate that there has been an 
arbitrary failure or refusal to act on his postconviction motion by the 
Superior Court.4 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999) (the passage of four months is not 
evidence of the judge’s arbitrary failure or refusal to act). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that DeWitt’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice