Title: Matter of Watson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 510, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 29, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
RE 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
KEAVNEY L. WATSON FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 510, 2005 
§ 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 29, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of December 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Keavney L. Watson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to act on his complaint of ineffective assistance 
of counsel.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that 
Watson’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Watson’s petition manifestly 
fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the 
petition must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
In August 2004, Watson was charged with felony theft, 
violation of bond conditions and two motor vehicle offenses.  In October 
2005, Watson wrote a letter to the Superior Court complaining about the 
performance of his appointed counsel.  The letter was forwarded to 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
Watson’s counsel.  On November 23, 2005, Watson had a final case review 
at which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced.   
 
(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, Watson 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 Superior Court docket reflects that Watson pleaded guilty to the 
charges against him and was sentenced on November 23, 2005.  His request 
that the Superior Court act on his complaint concerning his appointed 
counsel is moot. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
   
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id.