Title: Matter of Forehand

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF KEVIN FOREHAND §  No. 560, 2002 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 30, 2002 
  Decided: November 25, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of November 2002, upon consideration of the petition of 
Kevin Forehand for a writ of mandamus, as well as the State’s answer and 
motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Kevin Forehand, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court by requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued to the 
Superior Court in order to correct his sentence to give him credit for time he 
spent in the boot camp diversion program.  The State has filed a motion to 
dismiss.  The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective positions carefully.  
We find that Forehand’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Forehand pled guilty in 1995 to a drug 
possession charge and received a three year sentence, which was suspended 
entirely for probation.  In November 1999, Forehand pled guilty to trafficking 
 
 
-2- 
in cocaine.  The Superior Court sentenced him to three years imprisonment but 
diverted him to the boot camp program pursuant to DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 
6712.  In September 2001, the Superior Court found Forehand in violation of 
the terms of both of his probationary sentences and sentenced him to serve three 
years in prison followed by probation.  We affirmed that judgment on appeal.1  
Thereafter, Forehand filed several unsuccessful motions seeking correction of 
his sentence.  He did not appeal the Superior Court’s denial of those motions. 
 
(3) 
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 has 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  A petitioner who has an adequate 
remedy in the appellate process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a 
substitute for a properly filed appeal.4   
                                                           
1 Forehand v. State, 2002 WL 480935 (Del. Mar. 22, 2002). 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
4 See Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965).   
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
In this case, it is manifest that Forehand could have appealed from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his motions for correction of sentence.  He did 
not.  Forehand clearly had an adequate remedy in the appellate process, but he 
failed to avail himself of that process. Forehand may not invoke the Court’s 
extraordinary writ process as a substitute for his failure to file a timely appeal.5 
 Moreover, Forehand cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.  
Pursuant to the boot camp statute, the Superior Court is required to impose a 
defendant's entire deferred sentence upon a finding of a violation of probation, 
and no credit may be given for any time spent in boot camp.6    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                           
5 See In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del. 1997). 
6 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6712(h) (2001).