Case Title: Matter of Hyson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 435, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
RE 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
MICHAEL T. HYSON FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 435, 2005 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 12, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 8, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th  day of November 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Michael T. Hyson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and order 
that he be released from custody.  The State of Delaware has filed an answer 
requesting that Hyson’s petition be dismissed.  We find that Hyson’s petition 
manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
 
(2) 
In January 1992, Hyson pleaded guilty to one count of 
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to 20 
years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 15 years for probation.  
Hyson was released from custody in May 2004, but was re-incarcerated in 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
December 2004 after being arrested for violating the terms of his conditional 
release.  In August 2005, Hyson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Superior Court.  In the petition, Hyson argued that the imposition of 
additional conditions on his sentence amounted to a double jeopardy 
violation.   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Hyson 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 the duty.3      
 
(4) 
Hyson has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the issuance 
of a writ of mandamus.  He has alleged no facts demonstrating that he has a 
clear right to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the Superior Court,4 
that no other adequate remedy is available or that the Superior Court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus.  
 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 Habeas corpus only permits one who is illegally incarcerated to obtain judicial review of 
the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment.  Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 
(Del. 1997). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 Hyson’s motion to stay the conditions of his allegedly illegal sentence also is hereby 
denied.