Case Title: Matter of Moore

Citation: 

Docket Number: 121, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
§
PETITION OF THOMAS MOORE
§  No. 121, 2002
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
§
Submitted: April 2, 2002
  Decided:
May 6, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition of Thomas
Moore for a writ of mandamus, as well as the State’s answer and motion to
dismiss,1 it appears to the Court that:
                                                          
1 On April 19, 2002, Moore filed a document titled, “Entreatment for Judicial
Notice.”  This document appears to be a response to the State’s answer and motion to
dismiss.  Supreme Court Rule 43(b)(vii), however, provides that, “[u]pon receipt of the writ,
no further submissions by the petitioner will be accepted without leave of the Court.”  Moore
neither sought nor received leave of the Court to file a response to the State’s answer. 
Accordingly, Moore’s document shall be stricken as a nonconforming document. See DEL.
SUP. CT. R. 34.
(1)
The petitioner, Thomas Moore, seeks to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court by requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued to the
Superior Court in order to correct his sentence to credit him with time Moore
contends he already has served on his sentence.  The State has filed a motion
to dismiss.  The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective positions carefully.
 We find that Moore’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED.
-2-
(2)
The record reflects that in 1999 Moore pleaded guilty, among
other things, to his fifth offense for driving under the influence.  The Superior
Court sentenced Moore, effective January 7, 2000, on the DUI charge to three
years at Level V imprisonment, suspended after serving six months for two and
a half years at Level IV residential drug treatment, suspended after successful
completion of drug treatment for probation.  In September 2000, the Superior
Court found Moore in violation of probation and sentenced him to two and a
half years at Level V imprisonment suspended entirely for two and a half years
at Level IV Recovery Center of Delaware (RCD), suspended upon successful
completion of the RCD program for probation.  On January 6, 2001, Moore was
arrested for a second probation violation for committing new charges, including
second degree assault.  The Superior Court sentenced him, among other things,
to two years at Level V imprisonment suspended upon successful completion
of the Key Program for one year at Level III probation.
(3)
Moore has filed numerous motions and petitions in the Superior
Court seeking to correct or modify his sentence.  Moore contends that the
Superior Court’s VOP sentences do not properly credit him with all of the time
he has served in prison on his underlying DUI sentence.  In affirming the
Superior Court’s judgment following Moore’s second VOP hearing, this Court
-3-
held that there was “no merit to Moore’s contention that he did not receive
credit for all the time he previously served at Level V.”2  At the present time,
Moore has two additional appeals pending before this Court.  The first appeal
in case No. 459, 2001 is an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of
postconviction relief.  The other appeal in case No. 519, 2001 is from the
Superior Court’s denial of Moore’s motion to modify his sentence.
 (4)
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when
the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no
other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily has failed or
refused to perform its duty.3  Moore’s petition fails on all three requirements.
 This Court already has held that the Superior Court’s VOP sentences properly
credited Moore with time previously served.  Accordingly, Moore cannot
establish a right to the relief he seeks, nor can he establish that the Superior
Court arbitrarily has failed to perform its duty.  Furthermore, Moore presently
is pursuing an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of a sentence
modification.  This Court will not issue an extraordinary writ to a petitioner
who has another adequate and complete remedy at law to correct the act of the
                                                          
2 Moore v. State, Del. Supr., No. 285, 2001, Walsh, J. (Jan. 9, 2002).
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
-4-
trial court that is alleged to be erroneous.4  Moore’s appeal is an adequate and
complete remedy.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice
                                                          
4 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955). 
5 See Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).