IMO Hughes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO HUGHES FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § No. 182,2021 § § Submitted: June 25, 2021 Decided: July 23, 2021 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: (1) On June 7, 2021, the petitioner, Antonio Hughes, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to review and grant his request for permission to participate with counsel in his defense under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47. In its answer and motion to dismiss, the State indicated that the filings referenced in Hughes’s petition did not appear on the Superior Court docket and that the State had notified the Superior Court of Hughes’s request. On July 1, 2021, the Superior Court denied Hughes’s request to participate with counsel in his defense. (2) A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1 (3) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case. The Superior Court considered, and denied Hughes’s request to participate with counsel in his defense. Hughes’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to review his request is therefore moot. As to Hughes’s request that this Court direct the Superior Court to grant his request, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court “to decide a matter in a particular way.”2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Hughes’s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice 1 2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). Id. 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.
