Case Title: Matter of Toth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 716, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
1DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43.
2Toth argues that DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(b) mandates this result.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER M.
TOTH FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
§
§  No. 716, 2002
§ 
§
Submitted: January 21, 2003
  Decided:   March 4, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 4th day of March 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner, Christopher M. Toth, seeks to invoke this Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the
Superior Court to credit the time he spent at Level V incarceration between
January 14, 2002 and March 8, 2002 to his current sentence for assault.2  The
State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer requesting
that Toth’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Toth’s petition manifestly fails
to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must
be DISMISSED.
(2)
On January 14, 2002, a Superior Court jury convicted Toth of
Assault in the Third Degree.  On March 8, 2002, the Superior Court sentenced
3The Superior Court declined to credit Toth’s Level V time between January 14, 2002
and March 8, 2002 to his sentence for assault because it was unrelated to his assault
conviction. 
4In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
5Id.
6Id.
-2-
Toth to 1 year of incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months at Level
IV probation.  Toth subsequently filed a motion to correct his sentence for
assault, claiming that he had not been given credit on that sentence for time
previously served at Level V.  On January 15, 2003, the Superior Court denied
Toth’s motion.3  Toth then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in this
Court.
(3)
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this
Court to compel a lower court to perform a duty.4  As a condition precedent to
the issuance of the writ, Toth must demonstrate that: he has a clear right to the
performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the trial
court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.5  “[T]his Court will
not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular
judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control
of its docket.”6
7Contrary to Toth’s argument, the language of DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(b)
does not provide that the time he spent in prison between January 14, 2002 and March 8,
2002 must be credited against his current sentence for assault.
8Toth’s “Rebuttal” to Judge Bradley’s January 15, 2003 order, filed in this Court on
January 24, 2003, and his “Reply to State’s Answer,” filed in this Court on February 5, 2003,
are hereby stricken as nonconforming documents.  SUPR. CT. R. 34 and 43(b) (ii).
-3-
(4)
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this
case.  First, Toth has not demonstrated a clear right to the remedy he seeks.7
Second, Toth has not demonstrated that an appeal from the Superior Court’s
order would not provide him with an adequate remedy.  Third, there is no
evidence that the Superior Court has failed to perform a duty.  Finally, Toth’s
petition appears to be requesting this Court to order the Superior Court to
decide his motion in a particular way, which is not permitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Toth’s petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.8
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice