Case Title: Matter of Gillespie

Citation: 

Docket Number: 32, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
  § 
PETITION OF JAMES GILLESPIE   §  No. 32, 2003 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
  § 
 
Submitted: February 19, 2003 
  Decided: March 19, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the petition of James 
Gillespie for a writ of mandamus, as well as the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, James Gillespie, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court by requesting a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Superior Court 
to credit Gillespie with 183 days that Gillespie allegedly has served on his criminal 
sentence.  The State has filed a motion to dismiss.  The Court has reviewed the parties’ 
respective positions carefully.  We find that Gillespie’s petition manifestly fails to 
invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
DISMISSED. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Gillespie pled guilty in November 2000 to 
attempted theft.  The Superior Court sentenced him in March 2001 to two years at 
Level V imprisonment (with credit for 43 days previously served), to be suspended 
after serving six months for eighteen months of work release and probation. In August 
 
 
-2- 
2002, the Superior Court found Gillespie in violation of his probation (VOP).  He did 
not appeal from his VOP adjudication and sentence.  Instead, in January 2003, 
Gillespie filed a motion in Superior Court requesting additional credit time toward his 
sentence.  The Superior Court docket reflects that the motion is still pending.   
 
(3) 
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.1  An extraordinary writ will not be issued if the petitioner has 
another adequate and complete remedy at law to correct the act of the trial court that is 
alleged to be erroneous.2  In this case, Gillespie has another adequate remedy at law, 
which he currently is pursuing.  If the Superior Court denies his motion for credit 
time, Gillespie may seek relief from this Court through the ordinary appellate 
process.3   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is 
GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
                                                           
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 See Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
3 See Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).   
 
 
-3- 
Justice