Opinion
Docket No. 14, 1999.
March 2, 1999.
MANDAMUS DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF K. KAY SHEARIN FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 14, 1999. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 17, 1999. Decided: March 2, 1999.
Before HOLLAND, Justice, GEBELEIN, and QUILLEN, Judges (sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const., art. IV, § 12).
ORDER
This second day of March 1999, upon consideration of the petition of K. Kay Shearin for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, the answer and motion to dismiss filed by Thomas Neuberger, Esquire on behalf of the real parties in interest, and the response filed by Bishop Delbert Jackson, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Shearin filed her petition for an extraordinary writ on January 13, 1999. She requests this Court to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus directing the Court of Chancery to vacate its order, dated December 21, 1998, in Mother African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church v. Conference of African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 12055. The December 21st order held Shearin and Bishop Delbert J. Jackson in contempt of a prior Court of Chancery order and imposed a sanction of $18,330.80 for which Shearin and Jackson are jointly and severally liable.
(2) On January 25, 1999, Shearin filed a notice of appeal in this Court from the Court of Chancery's December 21st order. That appeal currently is pending before the Court. The real parties in interest have filed a motion to dismiss Shearin's petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus on the ground that she has another adequate remedy at law, namely her pending appeal.
(3) This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a lower court to perform a duty. As a condition precedent to the performance of that duty, it must be demonstrated to this Court: that the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty; that no other remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. In re Hyson, Del. Supr., 649 A.2d 807, 808 (1994).
(4) Shearin's petition fails on its face to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. A writ of mandamus is not available to correct alleged errors in the proceedings in the court below that are subject to ordinary appellate review. Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del. Supr., 214 A.2d 883, 885 (1965). It is clear that Shearin's appeal from the Court of Chancery's December 21st order is a complete and adequate remedy in this case. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is inappropriate under the circumstances. In re Hyson, 649 A.2d at 808.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Shearin's petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland, Justice