The Delaware Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of prohibition filed by Derrick Smith, who sought to prevent the Superior Court from proceeding with certain actions related to his 2011 convictions for attempted first-degree assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

The court issued its order on Feb. 2, 2026, after considering Smith's petition and the state's answer and motion to dismiss. The case was submitted for decision on Nov. 19, 2025, with Chief Justice Seitz and Justices Valihura and Griffiths presiding.

Smith's legal history dates back to 2011, when he pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The Superior Court imposed significant sentences for both charges: 25 years of incarceration for the firearm possession charge, and 25 years of imprisonment for attempted first-degree assault, with the latter suspended after five years for decreasing levels of community supervision.

The Delaware Supreme Court previously affirmed Smith's convictions and sentence on direct appeal in 2012. Following a remand for resentencing, the high court again affirmed the Superior Court's partial grant of postconviction relief and sentencing in 2014.

In his recent petition, Smith asked the Delaware Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition under Supreme Court Rule 43. He sought to "restrain" the Superior Court from enforcing what he claimed was an unlawful sentence. Smith's central argument focused on the order in which he was serving his sentences, contending that he was improperly serving his sentence for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony before his sentence for attempted first-degree assault.

Smith based his challenge on the then-existing provisions of 11 Del. C. § 1447A(e), which governed the sentencing structure at the time he committed the underlying conduct. According to the statute in effect when Smith committed his crimes, a person convicted of both a felony and possession of a firearm during the commission of that felony was required to serve the sentence imposed for the predicate felony before serving the sentence imposed for the firearm possession charge.

The statute also provided that a person convicted of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony was ineligible for "good time, parole or probation during the period of the sentence imposed" for that specific charge.

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary legal remedy that courts can use to prevent lower courts or administrative bodies from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting in ways that would cause irreparable harm. The remedy is considered the "legal equivalent" of an injunction against judicial proceedings and is typically reserved for exceptional circumstances where ordinary appellate procedures would be inadequate.

For a writ of prohibition to be granted, petitioners must generally demonstrate that the lower court is acting without jurisdiction or in clear violation of established law, and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the proceedings continue. Courts are generally reluctant to grant such writs because they interfere with the normal judicial process and can delay proceedings.

The Delaware Supreme Court's denial of Smith's petition means that the Superior Court retains authority to proceed with whatever actions Smith sought to prevent. The order does not specify the exact nature of the Superior Court proceedings that Smith wanted to block, but his challenge appears to center on the sequence of his sentence service.

Smith's case illustrates the complex interplay between firearm enhancement statutes and underlying felony charges. Delaware's firearm possession statute during commission of a felony is designed to impose additional penalties on defendants who use or possess firearms while committing other crimes. The statute's requirements regarding the order of sentence service and restrictions on early release mechanisms reflect the legislature's intent to ensure that enhanced penalties for firearm-related crimes are fully enforced.

The denial also demonstrates the high standard required for extraordinary writs like prohibition. Courts typically require clear evidence that lower tribunals are acting beyond their authority before intervening in ongoing proceedings through such mechanisms.

Smith's lengthy legal journey, spanning from his 2011 guilty plea through multiple appeals and now this denied prohibition petition, reflects the complex procedural landscape that can emerge in cases involving enhanced penalties for firearm-related offenses. The case has moved through various stages of Delaware's judicial system, including direct appeal, postconviction relief proceedings, and now this unsuccessful attempt to obtain prohibition relief.

The Supreme Court's order represents the latest chapter in Smith's ongoing legal challenges to his conviction and sentencing, though it appears his options for further relief may be limited given the court's consistent affirmation of his convictions and sentences across multiple proceedings.