Matter of Murphy
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JIMMY MURPHY FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ' ' No. 268, 2000 ' ' Submitted: June 13, 2000 Decided: July 26, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 26th day of July 2000, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner, Jimmy Murphy, filed a motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1 This is the third petition for a writ of mandamus Murphy has filed in this Court in connection with his Rule 61 motion. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer and has moved to dismiss the petition. 1 In 1996 Murphy was convicted of delivery of cocaine and maintaining a dwelling for keeping controlled substances. He was sentenced to life in prison as an habitual offender. 11 Del. C. ' 4214(b). Murphy=s conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1996, Hartnett, J., 1997 WL 328603 (May 30, 1997) (ORDER). (2) By Order dated November 19, 1999, this Court denied Murphy=s first petition for a writ of mandamus on the basis that Murphy had not demonstrated that the Superior Court had arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him in connection with his Rule 61 motion.2 By Order dated April 14, 2000, this Court denied Murphy=s second petition for a writ of mandamus on that same basis.3 (3) Murphy=s complaint in this third petition is that the Superior Court Commissioner improperly granted the State additional time to respond to his amended Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief. He further contends that the State=s delay in responding to his motion amounts to prosecutorial misconduct. He, finally, contends that the granting of the extension by the Superior Court Commissioner was motivated by racial prejudice. 2 In re Murphy, Del. Supr., No. 501, 1999, Hartnett, J., 1999 WL 1098209 (Nov. 19, 1999) (ORDER). 3 In re Murphy, Del. Supr., No. 109, 2000, Holland, J., 2000 WL 949649 (Apr. 14, 2000) (ORDER). -2- (4) This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only when the petitioner can show that he has a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.4 Furthermore, A[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.@5 (5) jurisdiction. Murphy=s petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court=s original It appears that the State requested, and the Superior Court Commissioner granted, an extension of time in which to respond to Murphy=s amended Rule 61 motion. There is no evidence of an arbitrary failure or refusal to perform a duty owed to Murphy on the part of the Superior Court. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State=s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Murphy=s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 4 In re Brookins, Del. Supr., 736 A.2d 204, 206 (1999). 5 In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
