Christopher R. Desmond v. Joseph R. Biden, III

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Christopher R. Desmond’s complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of an expired plea offer. The Court held that Desmond had an adequate remedy under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, found the appeal legally frivolous, revoked his in forma pauperis status based on an untruthful certification, and ordered him to pay the filing fee.

Holdings

1. Mandamus was unavailable because Desmond had an adequate remedy under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and could not relitigate his prior postconviction claim by restating it as a mandamus request.
2. The Superior Court did not err in summarily dismissing the complaint, and the appeal was legally frivolous in light of the Delaware Supreme Court's prior affirmance of the denial of Desmond's ninth Rule 61 motion.
3. The Court revoked Desmond's in forma pauperis status and ordered him to pay the $460 filing fee because he falsely certified that the claim had not previously been raised or disposed of and omitted multiple prior in forma pauperis applications.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Desmond could obtain a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of an expired 1992 plea offer after raising the same claim in prior postconviction proceedings.
2. Whether the Superior Court properly dismissed the mandamus complaint because Desmond had an adequate remedy under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and did not establish the prerequisites for mandamus.
3. Whether Desmond's in forma pauperis status should be revoked because his application contained materially untruthful certifications concerning prior litigation and prior in forma pauperis applications.

Disposition

affirmed