IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEPHEN WINN, §
§ No. 611, 2015
Petitioner Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ for the State of Delaware,
JOHN EDINGER, §
§ C.A. No. N15M-07-231
Respondent Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: January 6, 2016
Decided: February 17, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 17th day of February 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Stephen Winn, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s order dated October 5, 2015, dismissing his petition for a writ of
mandamus. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a motion
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is clear on the face of
Winn’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) A Superior Court jury convicted Winn in 2002 of multiple crimes,
including Rape in the First Degree and Kidnapping in the First Degree. Winn was
represented at trial by the respondent, John Edinger, Esquire, a lawyer with the
Office of the Public Defender. Following his conviction, the Superior Court
sentenced Winn to forty-seven years at Level V incarceration followed by a period
of probation. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. 1
Since that time, Winn has filed multiple unsuccessful petitions seeking
postconviction relief.2
(3) On July 28, 2015, Winn filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
requesting the Superior Court to issue a declaratory judgment holding, among
other things, that his former counsel violated the constitution by failing to provide
him with a copy of notes from one of the State’s witnesses who testified at his
2002 trial. The Superior Court summarily dismissed the petition on the ground
that it was plain on the face of Winn’s petition that he was not entitled to relief.
The Superior Court found that, in essence, Winn was alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel and that the issue previously had been raised in other
unsuccessful proceedings. This appeal followed.
(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Winn acknowledges that Edinger no
longer has a copy of the notes that he seeks. Winn asks this Court to declare that
Edinger violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide Winn with a copy of
1
Winn v. State, 2003 WL 1442468 (Del. Mar. 19, 2003).
2
See, e.g., Winn v. State, 2015 WL 8710303 (Del. Dec. 11, 2015) (affirming the denial of
Winn’s fourth petition for postconviction relief).
2
the notes earlier and to order Edinger to pay him $250,000 in compensatory
damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Alternatively, Winn asks this Court
to order a new trial.
(5) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by the
Superior Court to compel an administrative agency or public official to perform a
duty.3 As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must
demonstrate that: 1) he has a clear right to the performance of the duty; 2) no other
adequate remedy is available; and 3) the administrative agency or public official
has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. 4 Mandamus will not issue to
compel the performance of a discretionary act.5
(6) Winn’s petition fails for multiple reasons. First, even if Edinger still
had a copy of the notes, Winn cannot establish that Edinger has a nondiscretionary
duty to provide the notes to him.6 Moreover, because Winn acknowledges that
Edinger no longer has the notes, Winn cannot establish that Edinger arbitrarily
refused to give him a copy. Moreover, to the extent Winn asks this Court to
declare that Edinger was ineffective for failing to provide him with a copy of the
3
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996); 10 Del. C. § 564.
4
Id.
5
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
6
See State v. Winn, 2004 WL 3030023 (Del. Super. Dec. 23, 2004) (holding that, “while it is a
good practice, there is no requirement that counsel share discovery material with the
defendant.”), aff’d, 2005 WL 3357513 (Del. Dec. 8, 2005).
3
notes at trial, that issue already has been resolved against him.7 He cannot use a
writ of mandamus to relitigate an issue that has already been decided.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
7
Id.
4