Title: In the Matter of the Petition of Robert Alley for a Writ of Mandamus
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 384, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF ROBERT ALLEY 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 384, 2023 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 28, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 1, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the State of 
Delaware’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Robert Alley, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus directing 
the Superior Court to modify or reduce the bail set in Alley’s criminal cases.  The 
State, as the real party in interest, has filed an answer and motion to dismiss the 
petition.  After careful review, we conclude that the petition is without merit and 
must be dismissed. 
(2) 
Between September 2022 and January 2023, Alley was arrested and 
charged with multiple misdemeanors in five separate but related cases.  The Court 
of Common Pleas imposed bail in various amounts in all five cases.  Alley posted 
bail in three of the cases.  In August 2023, the State entered a nolle prosequi in the 
Court of Common Pleas in each case and indicted Alley in the Superior Court for 
2 
 
the same charges, together with pending felony charges.  The Court of Common 
Pleas thereafter returned the money that Alley had posted to the appropriate bail-
bond entity.  At Alley’s September 19, 2023 arraignment in the Superior Court, the 
court set Alley’s bail at an aggregate $12,000 cash for the five sets of charges that 
were transferred from the Court of Common Pleas.  In his petition for a writ of 
mandamus, Alley invokes the Double Jeopardy Clause and argues that the Superior 
Court could not impose bail on charges for which the Court of Common Pleas had 
previously set bail.  Alley is mistaken. 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus will issue to a trial court only if the petitioner can 
show: (i) a clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy 
is available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 
its duty.1  “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to 
act, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform 
a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the 
control of its docket.”2 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.   
First, the petition is moot because Alley resolved the charges against him by pleading 
guilty to one count of an act of intimidation and two counts of noncompliance with 
 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 Id. 
3 
 
bond on December 20, 2023.3  Second, the Double Jeopardy Clause—which “forbids 
successive prosecution and cumulative punishment for a greater and lesser included 
offense”4—is not applicable here.  And, as the State notes, although both the Court 
of Common Pleas and the Superior Court set bail on the same charges, only one 
court’s bail was “active” at any given time.  Finally, Alley cannot show that he has 
a clear right to the performance of a duty:  the Superior Court has the discretion to 
set bail and modify bail conditions.5  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
dismiss be GRANTED.  The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
3 See Burroughs v. State, 304 A.3d 530, 539 (Del. 2023). 
4 Blake v. State, 65 A.3d 557, 561 (Del. 2013) (citation omitted). 
5 Boo’ze v. State, 2004 WL 691903, at *5 (Del. Mar. 25, 2004); 11 Del. C. § 2104(e)(1).