IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ALAN T. BROOKS,

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellant,

v.

MATT DENN,

Defendant Below, 

Appellee.

§

§

§ No. 466, 2016

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N16M-07-161

§ 

§

§

 Submitted: October 6, 2016 

 Decided: November 30, 2016 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

 This 30th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the 

Court that: 

(1) The appellant, Alan T. Brooks, filed this appeal from the Superior 

Court’s dismissal of his complaint for a writ of mandamus and a declaratory 

judgment. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the 

ground that it is manifest on the face of Brooks’ opening brief that his appeal is 

without merit. We agree and affirm. 
2

(2) A Superior Court jury convicted Brooks of multiple crimes, including 

Murder in the First Degree, in 1987. Brooks was sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Brooks’ convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.1 

(3) On August 4, 2016, Brooks filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus 

under 10 Del. C. § 564 and a declaratory judgment under 10 Del. C. § 6501 in the 

Superior Court. Brooks sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Attorney 

General’s Office for production of under seal criminal records relating to a witness 

who testified at his 1987 trial and a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to the 

records. Brooks claimed he was entitled to the records under Brady v. Maryland2

because the witness received a deal from the State in exchange for her statement 

implicating Brooks and her testimony at trial, but falsely testified at trial that she 

did not receive a deal or leniency from the State. Brooks unsuccessfully raised this 

Brady claim in his fourth and fifth motions for postconviction relief under Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 61.3 

 

1

Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1990). 

2

 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

3

Brooks v. State, 2012 WL 3595141, at *1 (Del. Aug. 21, 2012) (affirming the Superior Court’s 

conclusion that Brooks’ Brady claim in his fifth postconviction motion was procedurally barred 

under Rule 61); Brooks v. State, 2010 WL 2197622, at *1-2 (Del. June 2, 2010) (affirming the 

Superior Court’s conclusion that Brooks’ Brady claim in his fourth postconviction motion was 

procedurally barred under Rule 61 and the Superior Court’s denial of Brooks’ request for an 

evidentiary hearing to review the records).
3

(4) Upon initial review of the complaint, the Superior Court found that it 

plainly appeared from the face of the complaint that Brooks was not entitled to 

relief. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. 

(5) In his opening brief, Brooks argues that the Superior Court erred in 

dismissing his complaint because he was entitled to the documents under Brady 

and he needed the documents to overturn his convictions. The exclusive remedy 

for the relief sought by Brooks—production of documents he claims were 

improperly withheld under Brady and that he wishes to use to overturn his 

convictions—is under Rule 61.4

 Brooks’ previous lack of success under Rule 61 

does not mean he can now file a civil complaint to avoid the requirements of his 

exclusive remedy under Rule 61. The Superior Court did not err in dismissing 

Brooks’ complaint. 

 

4

 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2). See also Marvel v. New Castle Cnty. Superior Court, 2016 WL 

3563273, at *1 (Del. June 21, 2016) (affirming the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of complaint 

alleging constitutional violations by this Court and the Superior Court and recognizing that 

plaintiff’s exclusive remedy to overturn his convictions was under Rule 61); Wright v. State, 

2015 WL 5766520, at *2 (Del. Oct. 1, 2015) (holding Rule 61 provided exclusive remedy for 

appellant who sought writ of habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, and declaratory judgment to 

overturn his convictions). 
4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 

and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

 Justice