Case Title: Matter of Manis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 126, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
1State v.  Manis, Del.  Super., No.  9812000028, Silverman J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF GORDON L.
§
No.  126, 2002
MANIS FOR A WRIT OF 
§
MANDAMUS.
§
Def.  ID No.  9812000028
Submitted: April 2, 2002
Decided:
May 22, 2002 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition for a writ
of mandamus filed by Gordon L.  Manis, and the answer and motion to
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In October 1999, Gordon L.  Manis pled guilty to Manslaughter
and Driving Under the Influence.  By sentencing order dated January 7, 2000,
as later modified on February 17, 2000, and October 26, 2001, the Superior
Court sentenced Manis to a total of 15 years imprisonment, suspended after
30 months for 7½ years at Level IV home confinement, suspended after 18
months, for the balance at Level III probation.1  Manis was ordered to be held
at Level V imprisonment pending his transfer to Level IV home confinement.
2In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del.  1988).
2
(2)
By order dated February 21, 2002, the Superior Court modified
Manis’ sentence to provide that he should be held at Level III while awaiting
placement “in any Level IV program.”  On March 5, 20002, Manis was
transferred to a Level IV facility where he is participating in the Crest
Program.  
(3)
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Manis argues that his
placement at Level IV is improper because it constitutes “imprisonment” and
thus violates the plea agreement, which required only 30 months of
imprisonment.  Moreover, Manis complains that the February 21 order gives
too much discretion to the Department of Correction as to his particular
program placement.
(4)
This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court
to perform a duty, but only when the complainant 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.2  “[I]n the absence
of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, this Court will not
issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular
3Id.
4In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del.  1997).
3
judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the
control of its docket.”3  
(5)
In this case, Manis could have filed an appeal from the February
21 sentence modification order, but he did not.  He cannot now use
mandamus as a substitute for the regular avenue of appellate review.4
Moreover, Manis has not shown that the Superior Court has arbitrarily
refused or failed to perform a duty owed to him.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.  The petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Joseph T. Walsh
             
Justice