IMO the Petition of Detlef Hartmann for a Writ of Prohibition

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 271, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF DETLEF § No. 271, 2025 HARTMANN FOR A WRIT OF § PROHIBITION §

Submitted: September 11, 2025 Decided: November 17, 2025

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

ORDER

After careful consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition, the State’s

answer and motion to dismiss, as well as the Superior Court docket, it appears to the

Court that:

(1) In March 2001, the petitioner, Detlef Hartmann, pleaded guilty to one

count of second-degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful

sexual contact. The Superior Court sentenced Hartmann to a total of 10 years of

unsuspended incarceration, followed by probation. We affirmed Hartmann’s

convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1 Following Hartmann’s release from

prison, he was twice re-sentenced after the Superior Court found that he had violated

the terms of his probation. The Superior Court docket reflects that Hartmann was

discharged from probation in February 2025.

1 Hartmann v. State, 2003 WL 1524623 (Del. Mar. 20, 2003). (2) In June 2025, Hartmann filed this petition under Supreme Court Rule

43 asking the Court to issue a writ of prohibition. Hartmann appears to argue that

the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over his criminal case because the

Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings involving child abuse.

Hartmann asks this Court to direct the Superior Court to, among other things, “cease

all proceedings in this matter” and “void [his] criminal case totally.”

(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 (a) proceeding in a matter

where it has no jurisdiction or (b) exceeding its jurisdiction in a matter that is

properly before it.2 The jurisdictional defect alleged by the petitioner must be clear

from the record.3

(4) We have previously considered and rejected Hartmann’s claim that the

Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal charges.4 Hartmann’s petition

for a writ of prohibition must therefore be dismissed.

2 In re Goodlett, 2005 WL 2333923, at *1 (Del. Sept. 21, 2005). 3 Id. 4 Hartmann, 2003 WL 1524623, at *1 (“The charges against Hartmann were properly within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction.”). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to

dismiss be GRANTED and the petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition be

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice