Opinion
No. 413, 1998.
Decided: December 9, 1998.
Superior (Kent) CA 98M-09-001.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JERRY LEE ALSTON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AGNES E. PENNELLA AND THE CLERKS OF THE COURTS OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AND THE KENT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 38 THE GREEN, AND THE STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OFFICE, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 413, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 24, 1998. Decided: December 9, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of December 1998, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Jerry Lee Alston ("Alston"), has filed this appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing Alston's petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition. On November 16, 1998, Alston filed his opening brief. The State of Delaware ("State") has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Alston's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). We agree and affirm.
(2) Alston was charged in the Justice of the Peace Court with two motor vehicle violations. Alston contends that he appeared for arraignment on July 18, 1998, in the Justice of the Peace Court, and that the charges were dismissed at that time. Nonetheless, the Justice of the Peace Court issued to Alston a notice for failure to appear and scheduled a new date for arraignment. Alston transferred the case to the Court of Common Pleas for trial. By order dated August 20, 1998, the Court of Common Pleas denied Alston's request for a continuance. On September 2, 1998, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed one of the charges against Alston. On the same date, the State entered a nolle prosequi as to the other charge.
(3) On September 1, 1998, prior to the dismissal of the charges in the Court of Common Pleas, Alston filed petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the Superior Court. Alston's petitions raised a plethora of legal claims arising from the actions in the Justice of the Peace Court and Court of Common Pleas, including deprivations of various rights under the state and federal constitutions, and a claim for monetary damages. By letter decision dated September 3, 1998, the Superior Court dismissed Alston's petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition on the basis that the petitions manifestly failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
(4) This Court has considered the matter on the basis of the brief filed by Alston and the authorities cited in the State's motion to affirm. We have concluded that the judgment of dismissal entered by the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned letter decision of September 3, 1998. Neither the writ of mandamus nor the writ of prohibition can be used by the Superior Court to compel a lower court to decide a matter before it in any particular manner or to review judicial actions taken in the exercise of the lower court's legitimate jurisdiction. In re Hyson, Del. Supr., 649 A.2d 807, 808 (1994); In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). Alston did not establish in the Superior Court, nor has he established on appeal, that he was entitled to extraordinary relief.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.