Case Title: Matter of Christopher Harry West

Citation: 

Docket Number: 257, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER 
HARRY WEST FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
 
§   
§ No. 257, 2019 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 15, 2019 
Decided: 
August 27, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the State’s answer 
and motion to dismiss, and the motion for leave to amend the petition, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Christopher Harry West, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus 
ordering his release from prison.  He originally asked the Court to issue a writ of 
mandamus to the Department of Correction, but then sought to amend the petition 
to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus to a Superior Court judge.  We conclude that 
the petition, even if amended, is without merit and must therefore be dismissed. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in January 2012, West pled guilty to Robbery 
in the First Degree and Robbery in the Second Degree.  Through counsel, West 
agreed that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 
4214.  On March 30, 2012, the Superior Court declared West to be a habitual 
 
2 
offender and sentenced him to twenty-eight years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after twenty-five years for decreasing levels of supervision.  West did not 
file a direct appeal.  Since his sentencing, West has filed three unsuccessful motions 
for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and an unsuccessful 
motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35.1  The United States District Court 
for the District of Delaware denied West’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 
2017.2 
(3) 
On June 17, 2019, West filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in this 
Court.  He asked this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Department of 
Correction ordering his release from prison because the Superior Court refused to 
review new evidence that he was in a straightjacket at the time of his 2012 guilty 
plea and the Superior Court resentenced him without counsel in 2016.  The State 
filed an answer and motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to 
issue a writ of mandamus to the Department of Correction and that West failed to 
establish a basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus.  West filed a motion to amend 
his petition to name a Superior Court judge as the respondent, rather than the 
Department of Correction.  
                                                 
1 See, e.g., West v. State, 2016 WL 5349354, at *1 (Del. Sept. 23, 2016) (affirming the Superior 
Court’s denial of West’s motion for correction of sentence); West v. State, 2016 WL 4547912, at 
*1 (Del. Aug. 31, 2016) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of West’s third motion for 
postconviction relief under Rule 61). 
2 West v. Metzger, 2017 WL 4798124 (Del. Oct. 24, 2017). 
 
3 
(4) 
This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is limited 
to circumstances where the respondent is a court or a judge.3  A writ of mandamus 
will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a clear right to the performance of a 
duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the Superior Court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.4  A petitioner who has an adequate 
remedy in the appellate process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a 
substitute for a properly filed appeal.5   
(5) 
As an initial matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of 
mandamus to the Department of Correction.6  Amendment of West’s petition to 
name a Superior Court judge as respondent would be futile because there is no basis 
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.  West has not shown that the 
Superior Court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him, or that he 
was without an adequate remedy to address the claims he raises in his mandamus 
petition.  He could have raised those claims in the appellate process or under Rule 
61.  In fact, he unsuccessfully raised the new evidence claim in his third motion for 
postconviction relief and the resentencing claim in his motion for sentence 
                                                 
3 Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(5); In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
4 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
5 In re Noble, 2014 WL 5823030, at *1 (Del. Nov. 6, 2014); Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 
883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
6 See supra n. 3.  See also In re Resop, 2015 WL 5168155, at *1 (Del. Sept. 1, 2015) (recognizing 
this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Department of Correction). 
 
4 
correction.  The fact that West’s motions and appeals were unsuccessful7 does not 
mean West is now entitled to mandamus relief.  As to West’s argument that Rule 61 
as amended in 2014 places unconstitutional limits on his right to court access and 
violates due process, this Court has previously found such arguments without merit.8    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that West’s motion to amend is 
DENIED and the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for the 
issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
7 West, 2016 WL 5349354, at *2 (finding no merit to West’s assertion that the Superior Court was 
required to appoint counsel to represent West at hearing that he mistakenly characterized as a 
resentencing hearing); West, 2016 WL 4547912, at *2 (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of 
West’s third postconviction motion and concluding that West failed to plead with particularity the 
existence of new evidence creating a strong inference of actual innocence where West 
characterized his physical restraints at the time of his plea as new evidence entitling him to relief). 
8 Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644, at *2 (Del. Nov. 2015) (holding “amended Rule 61 provides 
more due process and access to the courts than is constitutionally required”).