IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE § No. 45, 2021
PETITION OF ANTONIO §
HUGHES FOR A WRIT OF §
MANDAMUS §
Submitted: March 2, 2021
Decided: March 10, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s
answer, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, Antonio Hughes, is awaiting a criminal trial in the
Superior Court. The Office of the Public Defender represents him in those
proceedings. In this action, Hughes seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this
Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus ordering his
counsel to provide Hughes with a copy of the “full discovery” in his case and to pay
the costs of producing the discovery. We conclude that the petition is without merit
and must be dismissed.
(2) On February 3, 2021, Hughes filed in the Superior Court a pro se
motion to compel his counsel to provide him with a copy of the discovery in his case.
The court rejected the motion because Hughes was represented by counsel and the
court had not granted him permission to participate with counsel in the defense.
Hughes also wrote letters to various members and staff of the court requesting that
they cause his counsel to provide him with a copy of his discovery. On February 17,
2021, Hughes filed in this Court a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking similar
relief.
(3) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that has “traditionally
been used only to confine a trial court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” 1
“The Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is limited to instances when
the respondent is a trial court or a judge thereof.”2 Because Hughes’s defense
counsel is not a judicial officer, his request for a writ of mandamus directed to his
counsel must be denied.3
(4) To the extent that Hughes requests an order directing the Superior Court
to cause his defense counsel to provide him with a copy of his discovery, that request
also must be denied. This Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to require a trial
court to decide a matter in a particular way, nor may a defendant use a writ of
1
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988) (internal quotation omitted).
2
In re Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731, at *2 (Del. Aug. 16, 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
3
In re Johnson, 2020 WL 1881069 (Del. Apr. 15, 2020).
2
mandamus as a substitute for the appellate process4 or to obtain review of an
interlocutory order.5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of a
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
4
Id.; In re Reeder, 2006 WL 2852500 (Del. Oct. 4, 2006). See also Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731
(denying mandamus petition because postconviction proceedings and potential appeal from those
proceedings provided an adequate remedy at law).
5
Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731, at *2; In re Harris, 2020 WL 1672907, at *1 (Del. Apr. 3, 2020).
See also id. (“In addition, Harris has an adequate remedy at law. If the Superior Court denies
Harris’s motion for postconviction relief, he may appeal to this Court for a review of that final
judgment, which will bring up any interlocutory rulings (such as the denial of his motions to
compel) for review as well. A petitioner who has an adequate remedy in the appellate process may
not use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute for a properly filed appeal.” (citation
omitted)).
3