With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that power under the facts of this case. 36 . State v. Hoffstein, 315 A.2d 594, 596. (Del. 1974). 37 . Op. at 1151n.29. 38 . To be clear, I do not mean to suggest that the State was precluded from electing to prosecute Hazelton in the Superior Court, Instead, my references to the prosecution activity in the Court of Common Pleas support my conclusion that Hazelton was subject to simultaneous prosecutions in two different courts for the same charges. 39 . Id. at 1151-52. 40 . State v. Budd Metal Co., 447 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Del. 1982). 41 . State v. Fischer, 285 A.2d 417, 419 (Del. 1971). 42 . Id. 43 . Hawkins v. State, 792 A.2d 189, 2002 WL 384436, at *2 (Del. 2002) (unpublished table decision). 44 . State v. Harris, 616 A.2d 288, 291 (Del. 1992); see also Fischer, 285 A.2d at 420-21

A: holding courts have authority to dismiss a case  for want of prosecution in order to prevent undue delay in the disposition of pending cases docket congestion and the possibility of harassment of defendant
B: recognizing foregoing rule as wellsettled
C: recognizing that rule 48b is a proper means of intervention by the superior court over the transfer of cases having the foregoing results and that rule 48b is a codification of the inherent power of the court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution
D: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
C.