Case Title: Matter of Manis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 180, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

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

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF GORDON L.
§
No. 180, 2002
MANIS FOR A WRIT OF
§
HABEAS CORPUS.
§
Submitted: April 24, 2002
Decided:
May 22, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus 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 of Level III
probation.1  Manis was ordered to be held at Level V imprisonment
                                          
1 State v. Manis, Del. Super., No. 9812000028, Silverman, J.
2
pending his transfer to Level IV home confinement.  This Court affirmed
the Superior Court’s decision not to correct or modify the sentence.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 Level IV in any program.”  On March 5, 2002, Manis was
transferred to a Level IV facility where he is participating in the Crest
program.
(3)
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Manis seeks his
“release . . . to Level III until home confinement is available.”  Manis’
petition, however, must be dismissed.  This Court has no original
jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus.3
(4)
To the extent Manis seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus
or a writ of prohibition,4 his petition fails on its face to invoke this Court’s
original jurisdiction.  Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition
will issue if the petitioner has another adequate remedy at law.5  Manis
could have filed an appeal from the February 21, 2002 sentence
                                          
2 Manis v. State, 2001 WL 1006241 (Del. Supr.).
3 In re Cantrell, 678 A.2d 525, 526 (Del. 1996).
4 In his habeas corpus petition, Manis “prays this Supreme Court will issue a writ of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition or whatever remedy is available to place Manis
‘immediately’ at the home confinement this Court affirmed.”
3
modification order, but he did not.  Manis cannot now use the
extraordinary writ procedure as a substitute for the regular avenue of
appellate review.6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Manis’ petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                                                                                             
5 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988); In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del.
1988).
6 In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del. 1997).