IMO Michael Washington

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 479, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § No. 479, 2025 PETITION OF MICHAEL T. § WASHINGTON FOR A WRIT OF § MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION §

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

This 24th day of February 2026, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Michael T. Washington, who is serving a sentence for

manslaughter and other crimes, has filed numerous unsuccessful motions for

postconviction and other relief. He now seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of

this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition

to the Superior Court. The State of Delaware has moved to dismiss the petition.

After careful review, we conclude that the petition is without merit and must be

dismissed.

(2) In 2010, a Superior Court jury found Washington guilty of two counts

of manslaughter and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission

of a felony. The trial judge subsequently found Washington guilty of possession of

a firearm by a person prohibited. The Superior Court sentenced Washington to an

aggregate of sixty-four years in prison, followed by decreasing levels of supervision. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.1 Washington has pursued numerous

unsuccessful motions for postconviction and other relief.2

(3) In his petition for an extraordinary writ, Washington asserts that a

“series of procedural and constitutional errors . . . have denied Washington a full and

fair review of his criminal case.” Specifically, he claims that his previous motions

for postconviction relief were erroneously dismissed as procedurally barred, a

motion for relief from judgment was erroneously treated as a successive

postconviction motion and dismissed, and a motion made under Rule 33 was “denied

based solely on timing,” all when his federal habeas petition had been “stayed and .

. . remanded for exhaustion.” He contends that certain postconviction proceedings

cannot withstand scrutiny because his postconviction counsel had a conflict of

interest. Washington further alleges that the Superior Court erroneously treated one

of his motions as a fifth motion for postconviction relief and did not allow him to

1 Washington v. State, 2011 WL 4908250 (Del. Oct. 14, 2011). 2 See, e.g., Washington v. State, 2024 WL 5265275 (Del. Dec. 31, 2024) (affirming dismissal of fifth motion for postconviction relief and denial of other motions); Washington v. State, 2024 WL 834777 (Del. Feb. 27, 2024) (affirming dismissal of motion seeking an “Injunctive Administrative Hearing” or review of the criminal case, which the Superior Court treated as a successive motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2022 WL 4088664 (Del. Sept. 6, 2022) (“The Superior Court did not err in treating the appellant’s motion to set aside judgment under Superior Court Civil Rules 55(c) and 60(b) as his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and summarily dismissing that motion.”); Washington v. State, 2022 WL 1041267 (Del. Apr. 7, 2022) (affirming dismissal of second motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2017 WL 1573119 (Del. Apr. 28, 2017) (affirming denial of first motion for postconviction relief). Washington has also sought federal habeas relief, and an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of a motion challenging his sentence is pending in this Court. Washington v. State, No. 272, 2025 (Del. filed June 26, 2025). 2 file a memorandum and appendix in support of the motion, denying him due process.

And he asserts that the Superior Court erroneously denied his motion for correction

of an illegal sentence by relying on different federal precedents than Washington

cited in the motion.

(4) Washington characterizes his petition as seeking a writ of “mandamus

or prohibition.” He asks the Court to direct the Superior Court to hold an evidentiary

hearing and to review on the merits his prior postconviction motions, motion for

correction of an illegal sentence, and motion for a new trial. He also asks the Court

to address issues concerning prior postconviction counsel; consider purported newly

discovered alibi evidence; appoint counsel; and ensure compliance with due process.

(5) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.

A writ of mandamus will issue only 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 Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. 3 “[I]n the

absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, this Court will not

issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial

function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its

docket.”4 Washington has not shown that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed

3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 4 Id. 3 or refused to act. Rather, he seeks to litigate or relitigate issues that he has raised or

could have raised in the Superior Court and on appeal from the Superior Court’s

decisions. Washington “may not use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute

for a properly filed appeal.”5

(6) Nor is Washington entitled to a writ of prohibition. “A writ of

prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable remedy of injunction and may be

issued to prevent a trial court from (a) proceeding in a matter where it has no

jurisdiction or (b) exceeding its jurisdiction in a matter that is properly before

it.”6 The jurisdictional defect that the petitioner alleges must be clear from the

record.7 Moreover, “a writ of prohibition will not issue ‘if the petitioner has another

adequate and complete remedy at law to correct the act of the trial court [that] is

alleged to be erroneous.’”8 “The right to appeal a criminal conviction

is generally considered a complete and adequate remedy to review all of the

questions presented in a criminal proceeding.”9 The Superior Court has jurisdiction

over the crimes of which Washington was convicted, and Washington has failed to

demonstrate the lack of an adequate remedy to review the various claims he has

5 In re Lewis, 2007 WL 328806, at *1 (Del. Feb. 5, 2007). 6 In re Smith, 2026 WL 279902, at *1 (Del. Feb. 2, 2026). 7 Id. 8 Id. (quoting In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988)) (alteration in Smith). 9 Hovey, 545 A.2d at 628 (emphasis omitted). 4 asserted following his conviction. There is no basis to issue a writ of prohibition

here.10

(7) In 2024, we warned Washington in two appeals that he could be

enjoined from filing future appeals raising repetitive claims without first seeking

leave of the Court.11 Since then, he has filed this proceeding for an extraordinary

writ and the pending appeal noted above.12 The Court will consider when resolving

the pending appeal whether Washington’s filings constitute an abuse of the judicial

process warranting an injunction.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is

BY THE COURT:

Karen L. Valihura Justice

10 After the State filed its motion to dismiss, Washington filed a motion for leave to file a reply and a motion seeking to supplement the record. The Court has considered the motions, and they do not change the result. 11 Washington, 2024 WL 5265275, at *1; Washington, 2024 WL 834777, at *1. 12 Supra note 2. 5