Matter of Watson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KEAVNEY WATSON FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. § § § § No. 445, 2001 Submitted: October 12, 2001 Decided: November 1, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 1st day of November 2001, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and related affidavit filed by Keavney L. Watson, and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: (1) Watson has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the Superior Court. According to Watson, he filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on or about May 24, 2001 and August 24, 2001. Both petitions concerned a sentence imposed on Watson in August 2000.1 Watson contends that the Superior Court has taken no action on his habeas corpus petitions, and he asks that a writ of mandamus issue to compel disposition of the petitions. 1 2000). State v. Watson, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. PS99-10-0260, Stokes, J. (Aug. 11, (2) The Superior Court docket reflects that Watson s May 24 habeas corpus petition was docketed on May 30, 2001. On the basis of an order entered in March 2001 in a previous habeas corpus case filed by Watson,2 the Superior Court Prothonotary rejected Watson s May 2001 petition on June 1, 2001. Furthermore, by order dated October 26, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed Watson s May 2001 petition.3 Similarly, by order dated October 26, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed Watson s August 27 habeas corpus petition that was docketed on August 29, 2001.4 The Superior Court s October 26 orders render moot Watson s petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as moot. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 2 See Watson v. State, Del. Super., C.A. No. 01M-02-005, Stokes, J. (March 5, 2001) (providing that the court will not permit the filing of any further habeas corpus petitions unless a judge first determines that the petitions are neither repetitive or frivolous). 3 Watson v. State, Del. Super., C.A. No. 01M-05-022, Stokes, J. (Oct. 26, 4 Watson v. State, Del. Super., C.A. No. 01M-08-021, Stokes, J. (Oct. 26, 2001). 2001). 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.
