Opinion
No. 329, 2002
Submitted: July 3, 2002
Decided: September 16, 2002
Mandamus dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CECIL BROWNE FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS No. 329, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: July 3, 2002 Decided: September 16, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices
Myron T. Steele, Justice
ORDER
This 16th day of September 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, Cecil Browne, seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to provide him, at State expense, with transcripts of proceedings in a civil matter currently on appeal to this Court. To the extent that the Superior Court already has afforded Browne the relief he requests, the matter is moot. To the extent that Browne seeks a writ compelling the Superior Court to provide additional relief, he has failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.
DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11( 6); SUPR. CT. R. 43.
Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED.
(2) The record reflects that, in June 1999, Browne filed a civil lawsuit against Thriftway in the Superior Court. Following trial in February 2002, Browne appealed the Superior Court's judgment to this Court. In May 2002, Browne was informed by this Court that his notice of appeal had not been served upon the court reporter and that he should file a motion in the Superior Court if he wished to obtain transcripts at State expense. The record reflects that Browne filed a motion in the Superior Court for transcripts at State expense and that, on July 23, 2002, the Superior Court issued an order providing, at State expense, a copy of the transcript of the February 12, 2001 hearing. It, thus, appears that Browne has obtained at least part of the relief he seeks and, to that extent, his petition is moot.
Browne v. Thriftway, No. 191, 2002.
(3) This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only when the petitioner can show that there is a clear right to the performance of a duty at the time of the petition, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court has failed or refused to perform the duty. "[T]his 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." To the extent that Browne seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Superior Court to provide additional transcripts, he has failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court. Because even an indigent appellant in a civil case does not have an absolute right to transcripts at State expense and the Superior Court had discretion to deny any such request, Browne has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty which the Superior Court has failed or refused to perform.
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
Id.
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Browne also appears to request copies of transcripts from proceedings on 1/4/02, 2/4/02, 2/6/02 and 2/7/02.
Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Del. 1998).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Browne's petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.