Matter of Lowman ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE §
PETITION OF AARON O. LOWMAN § No. 469, 2015
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS §
Submitted: August 28, 2015
Decided: September 1, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of September 2015, upon consideration of the petition of
Aaron Lowman for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, Aaron Lowman, seeks to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus under
Supreme Court Rule 43. Lowman requests that his appointed counsel be
directed to withdraw from representing Lowman on appeal and that Lowman
be permitted to represent himself.
(2) On August 28, 2015, the same day that Lowman filed his
petition for a writ, this Court issued its decision affirming Lowman’s
convictions on direct appeal.1 Thus, Lowman’s request to represent himself
on appeal comes far too late and is moot.
(3) Moreover, a writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower
court to perform a duty if it is shown that: (i) the complainant has a clear
1
Lowman v. State, No. 23, 2015 (Del. Aug. 28, 2015)
right to the performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is
available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform
its duty.2 Lowman’s appointed counsel is not a judge. Thus, this Court has
no jurisdiction to issue a writ directed to him. 3 Also, to the extent Lowman
claims that his counsel did not represent him effectively, he has an adequate
remedy available to him in the postconviction process under Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for an
extraordinary writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
3
In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).
4
In re Morris, 2009 WL 3143615, *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2009).
2