Case Title: Matter of Wilson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 557, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES A. WILSON 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS  
§ 
§  No. 557, 2009 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 13, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of October 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, James A. Wilson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Department of Correction to re-calculate his sentence.  The State of 
Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Wilson’s petition be dismissed.  
We find that Wilson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.   
 
(2) 
Wilson, a prison inmate, was convicted in 2001 of Trafficking 
in Cocaine and other related drug offenses in Superior Court Criminal 
Identification Number 9912006359.  He was sentenced to 12 years of Level 
V incarceration, to be suspended after 10 years for probation.  On August 
11, 2009, Wilson filed a motion for sentence modification in the Superior 
Court, claiming that the Department of Correction had erred in calculating 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
his sentence.  The Superior Court’s order denying the motion was docketed 
on August 28, 2009.  Instead of filing an appeal from that decision, Wilson 
filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus.2   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.4 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  First, the original jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of 
mandamus encompasses only those instances in which the respondent is a 
trial court or a judge of that court.5  Wilson’s petition, which appears to be 
directed to officials of the DOC must, therefore, be dismissed.  Second, even 
if it is assumed that his petition is directed to the Superior Court, Wilson has 
not demonstrated that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to 
                                                 
2 Wilson’s initial petition, filed on September 24, 2009, requested that the writ be 
directed to officials of the Department of Correction (“DOC”).  On September 25, 2009, 
Wilson filed an “amended” petition, requesting that the writ be directed to the Superior 
Court.  On October 7, 2009, after the State had filed its answer and motion to dismiss, 
Wilson filed another “amended” petition, again requesting that the writ be directed to 
officials of the DOC. 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37 (Del. 1991). 
 
3 
perform a duty clearly owed to him and that he has no other adequate 
remedy.  On that basis, too, Wilson’s petition must be dismissed.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice