Court Opinion

ID: 9408733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 16:05:14.922794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.743916
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    IN THE MATTER OF THE                        §
    PETITION OF TAHLAL WAL-                     § No. 149, 2023
    IKRAM a/k/a ROBERT POTTS                    §
    FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS                      §

                               Submitted: May 30, 2023
                                Decided: July 12, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                            ORDER

         After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s

answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:

         (1)     The petitioner, Tahlal Wal-Ikram a/k/a Robert Potts, seeks to invoke

the original jurisdiction of this Court under Supreme Court Rule 43 and requests the

issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to rule on his motion

for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The State of

Delaware has filed an answer and motion to dismiss Wal-Ikram’s petition. After

careful review, we conclude that the petition must be dismissed.

         (2)     In June 2018, a Superior Court jury found Wal-Ikram guilty of drug

dealing and multiple weapon charges.1 The Superior Court sentenced Wal-Ikram to

1
    The Court has taken judicial notice of the docket in Criminal ID No. 1709011232.
an aggregate of twelve years of Level V incarceration, followed by decreasing levels

of supervision. This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.2

         (3)    On March 2, 2020, Wal-Ikram filed a Rule 61 motion for

postconviction relief and a motion for appointment for counsel. On July 12, 2021,

postconviction counsel advised the Superior Court that she had been appointed to

represent Wal-Ikram and submitted a briefing schedule. The Superior Court granted

the schedule.       Postconviction counsel subsequently requested extensions until

November 7, 2022 to file an amended motion for postconviction relief or a motion

to withdraw, which the Superior Court granted.                 On November 7, 2022,

postconviction counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Rule 61(e)(7). Wal-Ikram

requested an extension until December 28, 2022 to file his response to the motion to

withdraw, which the Superior Court granted.

         (4)    On December 19, 2022, Wal-Ikram filed his response to the motion to

withdraw. Upon the Superior Court’s direction, postconviction counsel and the

prosecutor filed an amended briefing schedule.              Under the amended briefing

schedule, Wal-Ikram’s trial counsel submitted affidavits responding to Wal-Ikram’s

allegations of ineffective assistance by February 28, 2023, the State filed a response

to the postconviction motion on May 4, 2023, and Wal-Ikram filed his reply on May

30, 2023. On June 5, 2023, Wal-Ikram filed an amended motion for postconviction

2
    Potts v. State, 2019 WL 7369199 (Del. Dec. 30, 2019).

                                                2
relief. On June 7, 2023, the Superior Court advised Wal-Ikram that briefing on the

motion for was postconviction relief was closed and that the Superior Court would

review and rule upon the papers submitted.

         (5)     On May 1, 2023, Wal-Ikram filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in

this Court. He asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Superior

Court to rule on his motion for postconviction relief.

         (6)     A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a

clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is

available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its

duty.3 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act,

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 the

control of its docket.”4

         (7)     There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.

Wal-Ikram filed his motion for postconviction relief shortly before the onset of the

judicial emergency that was declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the judicial emergency, emergency restrictions on judicial branch activity

were in effect and time requirements under the Speedy Trial Guidelines were tolled.

3
    In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
4
    Id.

                                                    3
As the State also points out, Wal-Ikram filed motions for sentence correction,

sentence modification, and new trial between March 2020 and September 2022 that

the Superior Court acted upon.              Briefing on Wal-Ikram’s initial motion for

postconviction relief was completed on May 30, 2023 and the matter has been

submitted to the Superior Court for decision. Under these circumstances, we cannot

find that Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to

Wal-Ikram.5 The petition for a writ of mandamus must therefore be dismissed.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                              /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                              Justice

5
  See, e.g., In re Campusano-Tejeda, 2020 WL 3886901, at *2 (Del. July 9, 2020) (finding that
passage of less than four months since the completion of briefing on the petitioner’s postconviction
motion did not constitute undue delay or arbitrary refusal by the Superior Court given COVID-19
and the petitioner’s multiple motions).

                                                 4