IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BURL A. HOWELL FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI § § No. 126, 2007 §
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 16th day of April 2007, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner, Burl A. Howell, seeks to invoke this Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of certiorari1 directed to the Superior Court to vacate its February 8, 2007 order denying his motion to vacate its January 21, 1999 revised order of restitution. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer requesting that Howell’s petition be dismissed. We conclude that Howell’s petition
manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. (2) In November 1994, Howell pleaded guilty to Forgery in the
Second Degree and Perjury in the Second Degree in connection with his forgery of his deceased brother’s will. A presentence investigation was ordered to determine the amount of restitution due Howell’s brother’s estate.
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5); Supr. Ct. R. 43.
In January 1997, the Superior Court ordered Howell to pay restitution to the estate in the amount of $16,040.40. Following litigation in the Court of Chancery, the estate assigned Howell’s restitution payment to one of the primary claimants to the estate, Margaret Ann Warren. (3) Following the assignment of the restitution payment, the
Superior Court entered a revised order of restitution on January 21, 1999, providing that the restitution be paid directly to Warren. Howell then filed a motion objecting to the Superior Court’s order on the ground that restitution may not be paid to a non-victim. The Superior Court denied Howell’s motion by order dated February 8, 2007. Howell did not appeal from that order, but instead filed the instant petition for a writ of certiorari. (4) A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is available
in limited circumstances and when no other adequate remedy is available.2 In certiorari, review generally is confined to jurisdictional matters, errors of law, or procedural irregularities that are manifest on the record.3 (5) While Howell argues that he did not have the right to appeal the
Superior Court’s February 8, 2007 order, that argument is incorrect.4 Howell could have appealed the Superior Court’s January 21, 1999 order as
Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437-38 (Del. 1977). Haskins v. Williams, Del. Supr., No. 633, 2006, Steele, C.J. (Mar. 8, 2007); Vincent v. State, Del. Supr., No. 232, 2006, Jacobs, J. (Sept. 26, 2006). 4 Nelson v. State, Del. Supr., Nos. 518, 519, 1998, Walsh, J. (Nov. 1, 1999); Farmer v. State, Del. Supr., No. 233, 1994, Hartnett, J. (Jan. 30, 1995).
well as its February 8, 2007 order, but chose not to do so. Thus, because Howell had another adequate remedy available to him, he is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Howell’s petition for a writ of certiorari is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice