Case Title: Matter of Resop

Citation: 

Docket Number: 383, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
OF RYAN MATTHEW RESOP FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 383, 2015 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 10, 2015 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 1, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of September 2015, upon consideration of the petition of 
Ryan Matthew Resop for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and the State’s 
answer, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
Resop seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court to 
issue a writ of mandamus directed to the Department of Correction 
(“DOC”), to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”), and to the 
attorney who represented his codefendant in a 2007 criminal case.  The State 
of Delaware has filed an answer and motion to dismiss Resop’s petition. 
After careful review, we find that Resop’s petition fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
(2) 
In 2007, Resop pled guilty to multiple criminal offenses, 
including three counts of Robbery in the First degree.  In 2009, Resop’s 
codefendant, Jarrell Crawley, filed a motion for postconviction relief 
 
- 2 - 
alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.  In response, Crawley’s 
trial counsel filed an affidavit, which included a statement that Resop had 
pled guilty and had agreed to testify against Crawley at trial. 
(3) 
Resop contends the statement about him in counsel’s affidavit 
was false.  He states that he specifically rejected the State’s first plea offer 
because he would not agree to testify against Crawley.  As a result of 
counsel’s false statement, which is included in documents that are available 
on Westlaw, Resop contends that he has been labeled a “snitch” by other 
inmates.  He alleges that he has been assaulted by other inmates and that the 
DOC will not allow him to move into the general population or participate in 
the Key Program.  Resop requests that a writ of mandamus be issued 
directing the DOC to allow him to enter the Key Program, directing the 
ODC to pursue disciplinary sanctions against Crawley’s counsel, and 
directing counsel to file a document retracting his false statements. 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be 
issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty owed to the 
petitioner.1  The Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ 
of mandamus is limited to instances when the respondent is a court or judge 
                                                 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
- 3 - 
thereof.2  In this case, the Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of 
mandamus directed to the DOC,3 to the ODC, or to counsel.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Resop’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
3 The Superior Court is the court with jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to 
administrative boards and agencies to compel the performance of their official duties. See 
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 564 (2013).