Title: Matter of Alley

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ROBERT ALLEY 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 184, 2009 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 11, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 23, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 23rd day of June 2009, upon consideration of the petition of 
Robert Alley for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court 
that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, Robert Alley, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the 
Delaware Department of Correction to: (i) credit him with time served on a 
sentence imposed by the Superior Court on December 22, 2008; and (ii) 
provide his Delaware correctional records to correctional authorities in 
Pennsylvania in order to remove a detainer lodged against him there.  The 
State of Delaware has filed a response and motion to dismiss Alley’s 
petition. After careful review, we find that Alley’s petition manifestly fails 
to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition 
must be DISMISSED. 
 
- 2 - 
(2) 
On July 10, 2007, Alley was arrested and later indicted on 
charges of resisting arrest, failing to obey a police signal, and criminal 
impersonation.  On November 14, 2007, Alley failed to appear for a case 
review in the Superior Court, so a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.  
While he was a fugitive, Alley committed new crimes in Pennsylvania.  
Eventually, Alley was arrested on the Superior Court bench warrant on 
August 5, 2008.  He remained in incarcerated in Delaware until August 19, 
2008, when he was transferred to Pennsylvania.   
(3) 
Alley was incarcerated in Pennsylvania for the crimes he 
committed there as of August 19, 2008.  He sought to be returned to 
Delaware through the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).1  On 
October 11, 2008, Pennsylvania authorities informed Delaware authorities 
that Alley was a sentenced offender in their custody who was serving an 
indeterminate sentence ranging from 11 months and 29 days to 23 months 
and 29 days.  Alley was returned to Delaware pursuant to the IAD on 
December 12, 2008.  On December 28, 2008, he pled guilty to resisting 
arrest and criminal impersonation.  The Superior Court sentenced Alley to a 
total period of three years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
serving 3 months (with credit for twelve days served) for a period of 
                                                 
1 11 Del. C. § 2540, et. seq. 
 
- 3 - 
probation.  On February 27, 2009, the Superior Court entered orders denying 
Alley’s motion for sentence reduction and his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  On March 13, 2009, Alley was transferred back to Pennsylvania to 
continue serving his sentence there. 
(4) 
Alley filed his petition for a writ of mandamus contending that 
the Delaware Department of Correction has refused to credit the time he was 
incarcerated in Delaware from December 12, 2008, to March 13, 2009, 
against his Delaware sentence.  He has requested that a writ be issued 
directing the Department of Correction to credit this time against his 
Delaware sentence. 
(5) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when 
the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no 
other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.2  An extraordinary writ 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  More importantly, the 
Court’s jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is limited to instances 
when the respondent is a court or judge thereof.4 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
4 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
 
- 4 - 
(6) 
In this case, the Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ 
of mandamus directed to the Department of Correction.  Moreover, Alley 
cannot establish a legal right to credit against his Delaware sentence for the 
time he served from December 12, 2008, to March 13, 2009, because, 
pursuant to the IAD, Alley remained in the custody of Pennsylvania 
authorities following his temporary transfer to Delaware, and the time he 
spent incarcerated in Delaware was credited toward his Pennsylvania 
sentence.5  He is not entitled to double credit against both his Delaware 
sentence and his Pennsylvania sentence for the time he served from 
December 12, 2008, to March 13, 2009.6   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Alley’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 11 Del. C. § 2544(f). 
6 Frady v. State, 2008 WL 4286542 (Del. Sept. 16, 2008).