Matter of Johnson

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DAMMEYIN JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. § § § § No. 573, 2007 Cr. A. No. 9709009665 Submitted: November 9, 2007 Decided: November 30, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 30th day of November 2007, the Court has considered the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Dammeyin A. Johnson and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware. Johnson requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing that officials of the Department of Correction credit him with fifty-four days of accumulated good time.1 The Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to officials of the Department of Correction.2 1 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4381 (2001 & Supp. 2006) (governing earned good time). This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to other than judicial officers and other courts. See Del. Const. of 1897, art. IV § 11(6) (amended 2005) (defining Court s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs); In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). The Superior Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a public official and/or entity, including the Department of Correction. Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 564 (1999). E.g., Meades v. Hosterman, 2006 WL 2466466 (Del. Supr.) (affirming Superior Court judgment on merit of mandamus petition). See also Pasquale v. State, 2007 WL 2949140 (Del. Supr.) (noting that proper procedural vehicle was mandamus petition in decision affirming denial of sentence correction motion seeking good time credit); Ortiz v. State, 2007 WL 1885122 (Del. Supr.) (citing Snyder v. Andrews, 708 A.2d 237 (Del. 1998)). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Johnson s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 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.