Matter of Cobb
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES COBB FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 28, 2000 Submitted: February 3, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 1st day of March 2000, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner, Charles Cobb ( Cobb ), and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware ( State ), it appears to the Court that: (1) In November 1991, Cobb pled guilty to six counts of second degree burglary. In February 1992, Cobb was declared to be an habitual offender and was sentenced to a total of eight years in jail followed by seven and a half years of probation. In March 1996, Cobb s habitual offender sentence was vacated and he was resentenced to a total of eight years in jail followed by three years of probation. Cobb is currently incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center. (2) Cobb s petition for a writ of mandamus complains that correctional authorities have miscalculated his good time credits. Cobb requests that this Court calculate this situation and send an Order [to the prison] with the results. (3) Cobb has invoked the wrong procedural measure to compel a correction of his good time credits. This Court has limited jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs.1 The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs to other than judicial officers or to courts.2 Cobb s request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directed to correctional authorities fails on its face to invoke the Court s original jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Cobb s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 1 2 See Del. Const. art. IV, ยง 11(6). In re Hitchens, Del. Supr., 600 A.2d 37, 38 (1991). -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.
