Opinion
C.A. No. 01M-03-058 WCC
Submitted: May 21, 2003
Decided: June 12, 2003
On Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment. Denied.
On Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Writ of Mandamus. Granted.
James Wilson Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility Wilmington, DE
Stuart Drowos, Esquire Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE
Dear Mr. Wilson and Mr. Drowos:
On May 21, 2003, the Supreme Court issued an Order denying Mr. Wilson's request for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to rule on his petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court now has pending before it a document entitled "Default of Judgment" filed by Mr. Wilson on March 17, 2003. This is the Court's decision regarding said Motion.
The decision was delayed because the Court lost jurisdiction to decide the motion due to the petitioner's appeal of this case to the Supreme Court.
This action was initiated in the Superior Court as a writ of mandamus. This is an extraordinary writ that can be issued by this Court to require a lower court or another governmental agency to perform a task which they have some legal obligation to do but for some reason have not performed. The State subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss and on October 30, 2002, this Court issued an Order dismissing Mr. Wilson's petition as to the allegations relating to a preliminary hearing, cross examination of witnesses and consideration of information beyond the violation report. However, as to the assertions made by Mr. Wilson relating to the denial of presentation of witnesses to the Board, the Motion was denied and the Respondents were provided twenty days to answer the complaint. The Court subsequently held a hearing in this matter and an Order was issued on December 11, 2002 requiring that a new Parole Board hearing be conducted within 90 days of that Order. In addition, the Order provided other deadlines that were critical to that proceeding. The final paragraph of the Order indicated that "If a parole hearing is completed within the 90 days, the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss the Writ of Mandamus will be granted."
From the Order received by this Court from the Supreme Court dated May 21, 2003, it appears that the parole hearing was scheduled for March 6, 2003 consistent with the Order of this Court, but was delayed and subsequently held on May 13, 2003. The Court has also received an order issued by the Board of Parole on May 15, 2003 indicating that no additional witnesses appeared at the rehearing and the previous order of February 29, 2000 was reimposed. By this action it appears that all of the requirements of the Court's Order of December 11, 2002 have been completed, and there is no basis for the writ of mandamus action to continue. As such, the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Writ of Mandamus is now GRANTED and the Petitioner`s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.