Opinion
No. 593, 2000.
Submitted: January 10, 2001.
Decided: January 30, 2001.
WALSH, Joseph T., J.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th day of January 2001, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Carmelo Claudio and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In 1987, Claudio was convicted, as charged, of Robbery in the First Degree, four counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, two counts of Conspiracy in the First Degree and one count each of Murder in the First Degree and Attempted Murder in the First Degree. The Superior Court sentenced Claudio to life in prison without probation or parole, a second life sentence, and 45 years at Level V. On direct appeal, Claudio's conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Claudio v. State, Del. Supr., 585 A.2d 1278 (1991).
(2) In May 2000, Claudio applied to the Superior Court for a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury, including the return of the indictment by the grand jury. By letter dated November 17, 2000, the Superior Court denied Claudio's request.
(3) In his petition in this Court, Claudio seeks to compel the Superior Court to provide the requested transcripts. Claudio maintains that the transcripts are necessary to ensure that the requisite number of grand jurors voted to indict him.
(4) A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a trial court to perform a duty if it is shown that: (i) the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. Mandamus may not be used to review interlocutory orders in criminal cases.
In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
Norman v. State, ex rel. Bove, Del. Supr., 177 A.2d 347, 349 (1962).
(5) A decision by a trial court denying a request for transcript is interlocutory in nature. Claudio cannot, through mandamus, circumvent the constitutional prohibition against interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.
In re Middlebrook, Del. Supr., No. 185, 2000, Hartnett, J., 2000 WL 975060 (May 30, 2000) (ORDER) (citing Gottlieb v. State, Del. Supr., 697 A.2d 400, 401-02 (1997); Mundy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 347, 1999, Berger J., 1999 WL 636615 (Aug. 5, 1999) (ORDER).
Norman v. State, 177 A.2d at 349.
(6) Furthermore, Claudio's suggestion that he might not have been indicted by the requisite number of grand jurors is entirely speculative.
Consequently, Claudio has not established that he has "a clear right" to any transcript or that the Superior Court has, by denying the request for transcript, failed to perform a duty owed to him.
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d at 620.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Claudio's petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.