Title: Matter of Gibbs

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF EDWARD GIBBS 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 546, 2002 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 16, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   November 13, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of November 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Edward Gibbs, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Department of Correction to apply additional good time credits to his 
prison sentence.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has 
filed an answer requesting that Gibbs’ petition be dismissed.  We find that 
Gibbs’ petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this 
Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. 
 
(2) 
In December 1988, Gibbs pleaded guilty to one count of 
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Third Degree and was sentenced to 15 
years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for probation.  
In June 1999, the Superior Court found that Gibbs had committed a violation 
                                                          
 
1DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43. 
 
2
of probation (“VOP”).2  On appeal, this Court reversed and remanded the 
matter for a new VOP hearing.3  At the hearing, Gibbs was again found to be 
in violation of his probation and, on appeal, this Court affirmed the 
judgment of the Superior Court.4   
 
(3) 
In July 2002, Gibbs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the Superior Court to compel the Department of Correction to apply 
additional good time credits to his prison sentence.  The Superior Court 
denied the petition without prejudice and denied Gibbs’ subsequent motion 
for reargument.  Gibbs did not appeal from the orders of the Superior Court. 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.5  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Gibbs 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.6  This 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is limited to 
                                                          
 
2This was the latest of several VOP’s committed by Gibbs between 1989 and 1999. 
3Gibbs v. State, 760 A.2d 541 (Del. 2000). 
4Gibbs v. State, Del. Supr., No. 554, 2000, Veasey, C.J. (July 30, 2001). 
5In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
6Id. 
 
3
instances where the respondent is a court or a judge thereof.7  Furthermore, a 
petition for a writ of mandamus can not be used as a substitute for a timely-
filed appeal.8 
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  To the extent Gibbs seeks to compel the Department of Correction to 
apply additional good time credits to his sentence, his petition must be 
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since he seeks relief against a party that is 
neither a court nor a judge.  To the extent Gibbs seeks an order from this 
Court compelling the Superior Court to issue a writ of mandamus, his 
petition must be dismissed since he had an opportunity to appeal the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, but did not 
do so. 
                                                          
 
7In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
8Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  Gibbs’ petition for a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice