In the Matter of the Petition of Devearl Bacon for a Writ of Mandamus

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 503, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF DEVEARL BACON § No. 503, 2024 FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § §

Submitted: January 31, 2025 Decided: April 8, 2025

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

ORDER

After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the State of

Delaware’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Devearl Bacon, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction

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

the Department of Justice and the Superior Court to (i) dismiss his pending criminal

charges, (ii) provide him with the transcripts of six hearings, (iii) order a hearing to

review discovery, and (iv) order an inquiry into “missing motions.” We conclude

that Bacon’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court

and must therefore be dismissed.

(2) The record reflects that Bacon has four sets of criminal charges pending

in the Superior Court. The same attorney was appointed to represent Bacon in all

four matters. On July 24, 2024, counsel moved to withdraw. Following a hearing on

August 5, 2024, counsel was permitted to withdraw and appointed as standby counsel. Since that time, Bacon has filed numerous pro se pretrial motions. At a

hearing on October 7, 2024, the Superior Court denied the eight motions that were

pending at that time. Since then, by the Court’s count, Bacon has filed at least an

additional fifteen motions. On January 23, 2025, the Superior Court ordered a

competency evaluation to determine if Bacon is competent to stand trial. On March

10, 2025, a forensic psychiatric evaluation completed by Andrew Donohue, D.O.,

was filed with the Superior Court. Dr. Donohue has opined that Bacon is competent

to stand trial.

(3) The original jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus is

limited “to the Superior Court, and the Court of Chancery, or any of the Judges of

the said courts and also to any inferior court or courts established or to be established

by law and to any of the Judges thereof and to issue all orders, rules and processes

proper to give effect to the same.”1 A writ of mandamus will issue to a trial court

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 trial court has arbitrarily

failed or refused to perform its duty.2 “[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

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5). 2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 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.”3

(4) There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus here. First, this

Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the Department of Justice.4 Second, and

as noted above, the Court will not dictate how the Superior Court controls its docket.

To the extent that Bacon is concerned that his pending motions have not yet been

addressed by the Superior Court, the court undoubtedly (and properly) refrained

from ruling on Bacon’s pending motions while the competency evaluation remained

outstanding. But we have no doubt that Bacon’s motions will be addressed by the

Superior Court in due course.

(5) Finally, we note that Bacon attempts to use the extraordinary writ of

mandamus to appeal the Superior Court’s denials of his various pretrial motions

while his cases remain pending. He cannot. Only final judgments in criminal cases

are reviewable by this Court.5 In the event Bacon is convicted of any charges in the

Superior Court, he will then have a right to appeal his conviction and any underlying

interlocutory orders to this Court.

3 Id. 4 In re Trammel, 2018 WL 3084542, at *1 (Del. June 20, 2018). 5 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b), 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice