Title: Matter of Thomas

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF TIMOTHY J. 
THOMAS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS                      
           
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
   No. 410, 2003
 
Submitted:  December 1, 2003 
   Decided:  January 20, 2004  
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
          This 20th day of January 2004, upon consideration of Timothy J. Thomas’ 
petition for a writ of mandamus, the State’s response thereto, and the record in 
Superior Court I.D. No. 0001016149, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Timothy J. Thomas, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the 
Superior Court to rule on his motion for correction of his July 26, 2001 violation of 
probation (“VOP”) sentence.2  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, 
has filed a response to the petition conceding that it does not appear that the 
Superior Court ever ruled on Thomas’ Rule 35(a) motion.  Because Thomas 
already has served the sentence at issue, however, his petition must be 
DISMISSED AS MOOT.   
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
On June 22, 2000, Thomas pleaded guilty to Robbery in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced to two years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended 
after six months for a total of eighteen months at decreasing levels of probation.  
On the same date, Thomas was found to have committed a VOP in connection with 
a prior sentence for criminal mischief and was sentenced to an additional                     
Level V term.     
 
(3) 
The record reflects that, on September 25, 2000, the Superior Court 
modified Thomas’ Robbery in the Second Degree sentence.  The record further 
reflects that, by October 3, 2000, Thomas had completed the Level V sentences 
imposed on June 22, 2000 and had been placed on probation.    
 
(4) 
On July 26, 2001, Thomas was found to have committed a VOP in 
connection with his Robbery in the Second Degree sentence and was sentenced to 
a term of imprisonment at Level V. 
 
(5) 
On August 29, 2001, Thomas filed a motion for reduction of that VOP 
sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).  On October 17, 2001, 
Thomas filed a separate motion for correction of the same sentence pursuant to 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  While the record reflects that the Superior 
Court ruled on Thomas’ Rule 35(b) motion by order dated January 2, 2002, there is 
 
 
-3-
no order in the record specifically referencing Thomas’ Rule 35(a) motion or 
specifically addressing the issues contained in that motion. 
 
(6) 
On June 6, 2002, Thomas was found to have committed a second 
VOP in connection with his Robbery in the Second Degree sentence and again was                   
sentenced to a term of imprisonment at Level V.  Thomas concedes that he now 
has completed his entire sentence on his Robbery in the Second Degree conviction.   
 
(7) 
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, Thomas must demonstrate that: he 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.4 
 
(8) 
Thomas has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the issuance of a 
writ of mandamus.  Thomas concedes that he has completed the July 26, 2001 
VOP sentence that is the subject of his mandamus petition and, indeed, that he has 
completed his entire sentence for Robbery in the Second Degree.  As such, his 
mandamus petition is moot.5  
                                                 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 GMC v. New Castle County, 701 A.2d 819, 823-24 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-4-
 
(9) 
Thomas argues that the mootness doctrine should not apply in this 
case because the issue he raised in his Rule 35(a) motion was “of public 
importance and its resolution will have a continuing and significant impact on the 
development of the law.”6   
 
(10) This argument is unavailing.  We have reviewed Thomas’ motion, 
which alleges error in the proceedings leading to the finding of a VOP against him, 
and do not find that it implicates questions of public importance or that its 
resolution would have a continuing and significant impact on the development of 
the law.7            
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Thomas’ petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Stifel Fin. Corp. v. Cochran, 809 A.2d 555, 559 (Del. 2002).  
7 We also find that the issues presented by Thomas in his underlying motion are likely to 
be present in future cases that are capable of review.  Radulski v. Del. State Hospital, 541 A.2d 
562, 566 (Del. 1988). 
 
 
 
-5-