Title: Matter of Manis

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

1State v.  Manis, Del.  Super., No.  9812000028, Silverman J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF GORDON L.
§
No.  138, 2002
MANIS FOR A WRIT OF 
§
PROHIBITION.
§
Def.  ID No.  9812000028
Submitted: April 8, 2002
Decided:
May 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition for a writ
of prohibition 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 at Level III probation.1  Manis was ordered to be held
at Level V imprisonment pending his transfer to Level IV home confinement.
2In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del.  1988).
3Id.
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
for 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 prohibition, Manis argues that the
Superior Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it modified Manis’ sentence to
allow for “any” Level IV program.  According to Manis, the Level IV Crest
program constitutes “imprisonment.”  Manis seeks to restrain the Superior
Court “from allowing [his] continued imprisonment [in the Crest program] in
excess of the 30 months” at Level V that was imposed pursuant to the plea
agreement.
(4)
The Court has the authority to issue a writ of prohibition to
prevent a court in this State from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.2  A
writ of prohibition 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 
4In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317,319 (Del.  1997).
3
(5)
In this case, it is manifest that Manis could have appealed from
the Superior Court’s February 21 sentence modification order, but he did not.
Manis may not invoke the Court’s extraordinary writ process as a substitute
for the regular avenue of appellate review.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Manis’ petition for a writ of prohibition is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Joseph T. Walsh  
                      Justice