Opinion
No. 21 2013.
2013-02-26
In the Matter of the Petition of Joseph J. O'LEARY, Jr., for a Writ of Certiorari.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
CAROLYN BERGER, Justice.
This 26th day of February 2013, upon consideration of Joseph J. O'Leary, Jr.'s petition for a writ of certiorari, and the State's answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
(1) O'Leary seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of certiorari commanding Justice of the Peace Court 10 to review the evidence against him and hold a new trial by a jury of his peers or dismiss the action against him. The State of Delaware has filed an answer to the petition and a motion to dismiss. We conclude that the petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, must be dismissed.
Del. Const. art. IV, 11(5).
The petitioner takes issue with his arrest on February 17, 2011 by the Newport Police for a traffic violation and the resulting fine imposed by Justice of the Peace Court 10 on December 14, 2012.
(2) A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court. Certiorari is available to challenge only a final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave question of public policy and interest is involved and no other basis for review is available. Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's claims, and the proceedings must, therefore, be dismissed. A petitioner may not use the writ process to argue issues that either were or could have been considered in a properly-filed appeal.
Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del.1977).
Id. at 437–38.
In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del.1992).
In re Woods, 2010 WL 2164529 (Del. May 28, 2010).
(3) In this case, O'Leary has not demonstrated that his right of appeal was denied, a grave question of public policy is involved or that no other basis for review is available. As such, he has not met the threshold requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari by this Court and, therefore, his petition for a writ of certiorari must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of certiorari is DISMISSED.