Opinion
No. 37, 2003
Submitted: February 19, 2003
Decided: March 19, 2003
Def. ID No. 9511007512
Mandamus Dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF RAHEEM LOVE a/k/a RAYMOND DEMBY FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 37, 2003 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 19, 2003 Decided: March 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
Joseph T. Walsh, Justice:
ORDER
This 19th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Raheem Love and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In 1996, a Superior Court jury convicted Raheem Love of the charge of Delivery of Cocaine. The Superior Court sentenced Love to thirty years at Level V, suspended after fifteen years for fifteen years at a Supervision IV halfway house or residential drug treatment program, suspended after successful completion of recommended drug treatment for probation.
(2) Love filed a motion for postconviction relief in May 1998 and again in October 1999. The Superior Court denied both of those motions. Love did not appeal either decision. In November 2002, Love filed another motion for postconviction relief. The motion for postconviction relief was referred to the trial judge on November 26, 2002. The motion has not been decided.
(3) Love seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to rule on his pending motion for postconviction relief. Love's petition must be denied.
(4) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty. Mandamus will not issue to dictate the control of a trial court's docket, except upon a showing of an arbitrary refusal to act. The passage of approximately three and one-half months since the referral of Love's postconviction motion to the Superior Court trial judge does not indicate the judge's arbitrary refusal or failure to act on the motion.
In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994)
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
See In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999) (determining that passage of four months since a postconviction motion was referred to a Superior Court judge was not evidence of an arbitrary refusal or failure to rule on the motion).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Love's petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.