Title: Matter of Brochu
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 84, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF BRYAN M. 
BROCHU FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 84, 2013 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  March 18, 2013 
Decided:  April 9, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The petitioner, Bryan M. Brochu, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to direct 
the Superior Court to rule on his motion to compel that he claims to have 
filed on December 29, 2012.  The State requests that Brochu’s petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Brochu’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
 
(2) In 2010, Brochu pled guilty in the Superior Court to Assault in 
the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced to a total of 22 years of Level V 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(5); SUPR. CT. R. 43. 
 
2
incarceration, to be suspended after 17 years for probation.  We affirmed on 
direct appeal.2 
 
(3) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that:  (a) he has a 
clear right to the performance of the duty; (b) no other adequate remedy is 
available, and (c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 
its duty.4  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 control of its docket.5 
 
(4) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  First, the Superior Court docket does not reflect that Brochu filed a 
motion to compel on or about December 29, 2012.  The docket instead 
reflects that Brochu filed his motion on March 11, 2013, after he had filed 
the instant petition for a writ of mandamus on February 27, 2013.  Second, 
the passage of several weeks since Brochu’s motion was referred to the 
                                                 
2 Brochu v. State, 38 A.3d 1254, 2012 WL 566770 (Del. Feb. 21, 2012) (TABLE). 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988) (citations omitted). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. 
 
3
Superior Court judge is not evidence of the judge’s arbitrary failure or 
refusal to rule on the motion.6  In the absence of any evidence that the 
Superior Court has failed or refused to perform a clear duty owed to Brochu, 
we conclude that the petition for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
 
                                                 
6 See In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999).