Matter of Biggins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. § § § § No. 46, 2014 Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: April 15, 2014 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 15th day of April 2014, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by James Arthur Biggins and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner, James Arthur Biggins, is serving a thirty-year sentence imposed in 1997 for convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse and related offenses. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal in 1999,1 Biggins has unsuccessfully challenged his convictions under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 a total of seven times.2 Biggins has also filed unsuccessful 1 2 Biggins v. State, 1999 WL 1192332 (Del. Nov. 24, 1999). See Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214 (Del. July 11, 2011) (affirming denial of seventh postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 199114 (Del. Jan. 19, 2011) (affirming denial of sixth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2010 WL 892106 (Del. Mar. 11, 2010) (affirming denial of fifth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2009 WL 1847663 (Del. June 29, 2009) (dismissing untimely appeal from denial of fourth postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2003 WL 22998846 (Del. Dec. 18, 2003) (affirming denial of third postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2001 WL 760859 petitions purporting to invoke the Court s original jurisdiction over his criminal case.3 (2) In his pending petition for a writ of certiorari, Biggins purports to seek relief for an alleged error the Superior Court made when instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses at Biggins jury trial. The petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court and must be dismissed. (3) A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.4 Certiorari is available to challenge only a final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave question of public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for review is available.5 Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the petitioner s claims. 6 (May 19, 2001) (affirming denial of second postconviction motion); Biggins v. State, 2000 WL 1504868 (Del. Sept. 26, 2000) (affirming denial of first postconviction motion). 3 See In re Biggins, 2010 WL 2696531 (Del. July 8, 2010) (dismissing petition for a writ of certiorari); In re Biggins, 2003 WL 1857525 (Del. April 7, 2003) (dismissing petition for a writ of prohibition). 4 Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977). 5 Id. at 437-38. 6 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 2 (4) In this case, Biggins has not demonstrated that his right of appeal was denied, a grave question of public policy is involved, or that no other basis for review is available. As such, he has not met the threshold requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari by this Court and, therefore, his petition for a writ of certiorari must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 3
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.
