Opinion
No. 349, 1999.
Submitted: August 10, 1999.
Decided: August 18, 1999.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and HARTNETT, Justices.
This 18th day of August 1999, the Court has before it, the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Wilton A. Knight ("Knight"); the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware; and it appears to the Court that:
(1) In October 1995, a Superior Court jury convicted Knight of trafficking in marijuana, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, use of a vehicle for keeping controlled substances and two motor vehicle offenses. Knight was sentenced to a total of six years mandatory incarceration followed by two years of probation. On direct appeal, Knight's convictions were affirmed.
Knight v. State, Del. Supr., 690 A.2d 929 (1996).
(2) The Superior Court record reflects that Knight filed a motion for postconviction relief which was docketed by the New Castle County Prothonotary on October 15, 1998, but was not presented to an individual judge until April 12, 1999, almost six months after that motion was filed.
(3) Knight's petition for a writ of mandamus requests this Court to compel the Superior Court to act on his motion for postconviction relief.
(4) The Delaware Constitution makes it the responsibility of the Superior Court, as the appointing authority, to ensure that litigants filings are presented by the Prothonotary to a Superior Court judge in a timely manner. The Superior Court cannot exercise its authority until the litigants filings are presented to an individual judge. Unfortunately, this case is the third recent application to this Court for a writ of mandamus because of similar inaction by the New Castle County Prothonotary in referring a matter to an individual judge.
In re Brookins, Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___, (1999).
Id.
In re Johnson, Del. Supr., No. 210, 1999, 1999 WL 507237 Holland, J. (June 3, 1999) (ORDER) (declining to issue a writ of mandamus on the assumption that the failure in making a referral to a judge was aberrational conduct by the New Castle County Prothonotary); and In re Brookins,Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___, (1999) (issuing a writ of mandamus).
(5) The passage of four months since Knight's motion was referred to an individual judge of the Superior Court is not evidence of a trial judge's arbitrary refusal or failure to rule on the motion. Knight has established, however, that the Superior Court, as an institution, failed to act systematically when the New Castle County Prothonotary did not refer his postconviction motion to a judge for almost six months.
In re Brookins, Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___ (1999).
Id.
(6) The framers of the Delaware Constitution vested this Court with the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to the Superior Court as a means of redress for litigants when there is an institutional failure to respond or act within a reasonable amount of time. The record of the New Castle County Prothonotary's inaction in this case reflects such a systematic failure by an officer of the Superior Court. Knight is entitled to redress for the Superior Court's institutional failure to exercise its authority by considering Knight's motions in a timely manner when it had a duty to do so. Since there is no other adequate remedy, Knight's petition for a writ of mandamus must be granted.
Del. Const. art. IV, 11( 5). In re Brookins, Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___ (1999).
In re Brookins, Del. Supr., ___ A.2d ___ (1999).
Id.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Knight's petition for a writ of mandamus is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is directed to send this Opinion to the President Judge of the Superior Court, who should ascertain that Knight's motion has been assigned for a final disposition by an individual judge of the Superior Court. The assigned judge should decide the motion on a priority basis and send the Clerk of this Court a copy of the final judgment that is entered. Jurisdiction is retained until the Superior Court decides Knight's pending motion. The writ shall issue immediately.
This opinion does not express or imply any view as to the merits of Knight's motion.
BY THE COURT:
Randy J. Holland Justice