Case Title: Matter of Alley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 660,2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ROBERT ALLEY 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 660, 2010 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 27, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  December 8, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 8th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the petition of 
Robert Alley for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and the State’s motion 
to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, Robert Alley, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to a judge of 
the Superior Court and to an individual probation officer employed by the 
Department of Correction.  It is not entirely clear what relief Alley is 
seeking, but we infer from Alley’s allegations that he seeks to have a 
detainer lodged against him in Pennsylvania removed and to have a violation 
of probation (VOP) charge pending against him dismissed.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a response and motion to dismiss Alley’s petition. After 
careful review, we find that Alley’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
DISMISSED. 
 
- 2 - 
(2) 
The record reflects that Alley was arrested in July 2007 and 
later indicted on charges of resisting arrest, failing to obey a police signal, 
and criminal impersonation.  After he failed to appear in Superior Court, a 
bench warrant was issued for his arrest.  While he was a fugitive, Alley 
committed new crimes in Pennsylvania.  During his term of incarceration in 
Pennsylvania, Alley sought to be returned to Delaware through the Interstate 
Agreement on Detainers (IAD).1  Alley was returned to Delaware pursuant 
to the IAD in December 2008 and pled guilty to resisting arrest and criminal 
impersonation.  The Superior Court sentenced Alley to a total period of three 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 3 months (with 
credit for twelve days served) for a period of probation.  After serving his 
term of incarceration in Delaware, Alley was transferred back to 
Pennsylvania in March 2009 to continue serving his sentence there. 
(3) 
After being released on parole by Pennsylvania authorities, 
Alley began serving his Delaware probation concurrent to his Pennsylvania 
parole under the supervision of Delaware authorities.  Alley last reported to 
his probation officer in January 2010.  He then absconded from Delaware 
and eventually was arrested on new criminal charges in Colorado in March 
2010.  As a result, Delaware authorities charged him with a VOP.  
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 2540, et. seq. 
 
- 3 - 
Pennsylvania authorities charged him with a violation of parole.  He was 
returned to Pennsylvania where he was found guilty of a parole violation and 
sentenced to ninety days imprisonment on September 27, 2010.  Delaware 
authorities lodged a detainer against Alley.  When his Pennsylvania sentence 
is complete, he will be returned to Delaware to face his pending VOP 
charge. 
(4) 
Alley filed his most recent petition for a writ of mandamus 
contending that the detainer lodged against him is illegal because his 
Delaware sentence had expired and thus he could not be charged with a 
VOP.  Alternatively, Alley contends that he was serving his Pennsylvania 
parole at the time of his March arrest and had not yet begun to serve his 
Delaware probationary sentence and thus could not be charged with a VOP.    
(5) 
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 failed or 
refused to perform its duty.2  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.3  More importantly, the 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
 
- 4 - 
Court’s jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is limited to instances 
when the respondent is a court or judge thereof.4 
(6) 
In this case, the Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ 
of mandamus directed to the Department of Correction or one of its 
employees.  Moreover, Alley cannot establish a legal right either to 
discharge of the detainer or dismissal of the VOP charge.  Delaware law 
prohibits concurrent prison sentences, but it does not prohibit concurrent 
terms of probation.5  Therefore, upon his release from prison in 
Pennsylvania in 2009, Alley began serving both his Pennsylvania parole and 
his Delaware probation concurrently.  His Delaware probationary term had 
not expired at the time he was arrested on new criminal charges.  The VOP 
charge thus is entirely legal.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Alley’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
5 Compare DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 3901(d) with DEL. CODE ANN. tit 11, § 4333(c).