Title: Matter of Wenzke

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ADAM T. WENZKE 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 267, 2007 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 17, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 24, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of July 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Adam T. Wenzke, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Superior Court to direct the Superior Court to modify his sentence so that 
he might immediately be placed at Level IV Crest or, in the alternative, 
change his sentence back to what was imposed in January 2005.  The State 
of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that the petition be dismissed.  
We find that Wenzke’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.   
 
(2) 
In April 1997, Wenzke pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First 
Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, and Resisting Arrest.  On the robbery 
conviction, he was sentenced to 15 years at Level V, to be suspended after 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
10 years for 5 years at Level IV Plummer Center or Residential 
Drug/Alcohol Treatment, in turn to be suspended after 6 months for 4½ 
years at Level III.2  On July 28, 2005, the Superior Court modified 
Wenzke’s sentence for robbery to include the New Visions and Life Skills 
Program.   
 
(3) 
On December 14, 2006, Wenzke’s TASC case manager wrote 
to the Superior Court recommending that his sentence be reviewed for 
placement at Level IV Crest and, upon successful completion, to be followed 
by Crest Aftercare.  On December 18, 2006, the Superior Court issued a 
modified sentencing order providing that, after 10 years at Level V, Wenzke 
would enter the Crest Program and, after 6 months, enter Crest Aftercare for 
4½ years.  In February 2007, the Superior Court denied Wenzke’s motion to 
modify his sentence.  Wenzke did not file an appeal from the Superior 
Court’s decision. 
 
(4) 
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, Wenzke must demonstrate that: he has a clear right 
to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and 
                                                 
2 Wenzke’s other two sentences are not at issue in this appeal. 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
3
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.4  A petition 
for a writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appellate review.5 
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  If Wenzke was dissatisfied with the Superior Court’s denial of his 
motion for sentence modification, his remedy was to appeal that decision to 
this Court.  He may not use mandamus as a substitute for appellate review.  
Moreover, Wenzke seeks to have this Court decide his motion for sentence 
modification in a particular way.  A writ of mandamus may not be used to 
compel a trial court to decide a matter in a particular way.6     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Wenzke’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Id. 
5 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
6 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d at 620.