Title: Matter of Flowers
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 323, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 11, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF GEARL T. 
FLOWERS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 323, 2010 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 22, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 11, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of August 2010, upon consideration of the petition of 
Gearl T. Flowers for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the 
Court that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, Gearl Flowers, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior 
Court to credit his sentence for twenty-three days he previously served at 
Level V incarceration.  The State of Delaware has filed a response and 
motion to dismiss Flowers’s petition.  Without addressing the merits of 
Flowers’ argument, we find that his petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
(2) 
The Superior Court docket in Flowers’ criminal case reflects 
that he pled guilty in November 2009 to Attempted Theft and Criminal 
 
- 2 - 
Trespass in the Second Degree.  On the criminal trespass charge, Flowers 
was sentenced to serve thirteen days at Level V incarceration.  For 
Attempted Theft, the Superior Court sentenced Flowers to one year at Level 
V incarceration to be suspended immediately for one year at Level III 
probation.  Flowers did not appeal.  In February and March 2010, Flowers 
was charged with several violations of probation.  After a hearing, the 
Superior Court found Flowers in violation and sentenced him to one year at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving 120 days with no 
probation to follow.  Flowers did not appeal.   
(3) 
Instead, he filed several unsuccessful motions for modification 
of sentence, arguing that the Superior Court failed to properly credit him 
with twenty-three days he already served at Level V.  In rejecting Flowers’ 
contention, the Superior Court noted that the 120 day VOP sentence was 
significantly less than the sentence the Superior Court could have imposed 
and that it was the Superior Court’s intention that Flowers serve 120 days at 
Level V over and above any time he had already served.  Flowers did not 
appeal any of the Superior Court’s denials of his motions for modification of 
sentence.  Instead, he filed this writ requesting that the Superior Court give 
him credit for twenty-three days previously served. 
 
- 3 - 
(4) 
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.1  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.2  In this case, Flowers 
had an adequate remedy in the appeal process to seek review of the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motions for credit time.3  More importantly, however, 
Flowers cannot establish that he has a clear right to twenty-three days credit 
he seeks.  Accordingly, we conclude that Flowers’ petition to fails to invoke 
this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Flowers’ petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
3 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).