Title: Matter of Anderson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF HARRY 
ANDERSON FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS  
§ 
§  No. 513, 2010 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 20, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    September 21, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of September 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Harry Anderson, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 (1) to 
compel the Superior Court to credit him with Level V time he spent in 
Pennsylvania awaiting extradition to Delaware and (2) to dismiss his 
criminal case in Criminal Identification Number 0511001605 on the ground 
that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated.  In its answer, the 
State of Delaware requests that Anderson’s petition be dismissed.  We find 
that Anderson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of 
this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.   
 
(2) 
In March 2006, Anderson pleaded guilty to Assault in the 
Second Degree.  He was sentenced to 8 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
2 
 
suspended after 1 year for 2 years of Level III probation, in turn to be 
suspended after 1 year for 1 year of Level II supervision.  Anderson 
subsequently was found to have committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) 
on two occasions.  In December 2008, Anderson’s probation officer filed 
another VOP report and the Superior Court issued a capias for Anderson’s 
arrest.  The Superior Court docket reflects that a VOP hearing has now been 
scheduled. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Anderson 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.3  Mandamus is not available to compel a trial court to decide a matter 
in a particular way or to dictate control of its docket.4   
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Anderson has failed to demonstrate that he has a clear right to the 
performance of a duty on the part of the Superior Court that it has arbitrarily 
failed or refused to perform.  Moreover, the Superior Court docket reflects 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
3 
 
that Anderson filed a motion to dismiss his criminal case on July 27, 2010, 
thereby demonstrating that he has another remedy available to him. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice