Matter of Rhoades

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § IN RE THE PETITION OF § No. 115, 2006 FAMOUS RHOADES FOR A § WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § Submitted: March 14, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 18th day of May 2006, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner, Famous Rhoades, seeks to invoke this Court s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the Superior Court to rule on his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Rhoades petition be dismissed. We find that Rhoades petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. (2) In April 2003, Rhoades pleaded guilty to Attempted Possession of Cocaine With Intent to Distribute. In September 2005, he filed a motion in the Superior Court to correct his sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a). The 1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. Superior Court docket sheet reflects that, on March 14, 2006, the Superior Court issued an order denying Rhoades motion. (3) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2 As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ, Rhoades must demonstrate that: he has a clear right to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 (4) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case. The Superior Court docket reflects that the Superior Court ruled on Rhoades motion to correct his sentence on March 14, 2006. Rhoades request for an Order directing the Superior Court to rule on his motion is, therefore, moot. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Rhoades petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 2 3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). Id. 2

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.