Matter of Cooper
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
3IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MAURICE COOPER FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION/ MANDAMUS. § § § § No. 482, 2010 Cr. ID No. 9607013229 Submitted: August 18, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 13th day of October 2010, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition/mandamus filed by Maurice Cooper and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 1997, Cooper pled guilty to criminal charges and was sentenced, in 1998, to twenty-five years at Level V suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of probation.1 On February 26, 2010, while on conditional release from that sentence, Cooper was arrested on drug charges.2 As a result of his arrest, Cooper was charged, on March 3, 2010, with having violated his conditional release and, on July 28, 2010, with having violated probation (VOP).3 (2) In his prohibition/mandamus petition, Cooper seeks to prevent the Superior Court from holding a VOP hearing. According to Cooper, the Superior Court is without jurisdiction to proceed on the VOP because, at the 1 See docket at 48, State v. Cooper, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9607013229 (April 21, 1998) (sentencing). 2 State v. Cooper, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1002013686. 3 The Superior Court docket reflects that the Board of Parole has since discharged Cooper s conditional release and dismissed the parole violation. See docket at 81, State v. Cooper, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9607013229 (Aug. 18, 2010). time of his arrest, he was on conditional release and had not yet begun serving the probationary part of the sentence. (3) A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable remedy of injunction and may be issued to prevent a trial court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.4 A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.5 (4) Cooper s petition offers no legitimate basis to question the Superior Court s jurisdiction or to suggest that the Superior Court has failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him. It is well-established that the Superior Court may terminate probation at any time.6 Cooper s status at the time of the alleged violation does not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction from proceeding on the VOP.7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Cooper s petition for a writ of prohibition/mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 4 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619 (Del. 1988). 6 See Del. Code Ann., tit. 11, § 4333(a) (2007) (providing that a period of probation may be terminated by the court at any time). 7 McClements v. State, 2008 WL 962629 (Del. Supr.) (citing Williams v. State, 560 A.2d 1012, 1015 (Del. 1989)); Winn v. State, 1998 WL 515166 (Del. Supr.); Rogers v. State, 1997 WL 683296 (Del. Supr.); Gabbert v. State, 1995 WL 420798 (Del. Supr.). See also In re Gunther, 1999 WL 1090591 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing mandamus/prohibition petition on basis that right of appeal was complete and adequate remedy to review double jeopardy claim and any other alleged errors arising from VOP prosecution). 5 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.
