Title: Lyons v. Carroll et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 698, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 7, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
VASSAR L.  LYONS,
§
§
No.  698, 2002
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court of
§
the State of Delaware, in and 
v.
§
for New Castle County in C.A. 
§
No. 02M-10-093.
THOMAS L.  CARROLL and the
§
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, §
§
Respondents Below,
§
Appellees.
§
Submitted: June 19, 2003
Decided:
July 7, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
O R D E R
This 7th day of July 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief
and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears
to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Vassar L. Lyons, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s order of October 28, 2002, that dismissed his petition for a writ of
mandamus.  The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Lyons’ opening brief that the
appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM.
1State v.  Lyons, Del.  Super., Cr.A. Nos.  IN01-01-2419, Babiarz, J.  (Feb.  1, 2002).
2See Del.  Code Ann.  tit.  11, § 6571 (2001) (setting forth the terms of the Interstate
Corrections Compact).
2
(2)
In 2001, Lyons pleaded guilty to two counts of Possession of a Firearm
During the Commission of a Felony, one count of Robbery in the First Degree, and
two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree.  Lyons was sentenced on February 1,
2002, to ten years at Level V, suspended after eight years, for two years at Level II.
(3)
In an addendum to the sentencing order, the Superior Court provided that
it “did not oppose [Lyons] serving both Level 5 time and probation in the State of
Virginia.”1  By decision dated July 23, 2002, the Department of Correction’s
Institutional Release Classification Board (IRCB) approved Lyons’ request for an
interstate transfer.2 
(4)
In October 2002, Lyons filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the
Superior Court.  Lyons complained that the Department of Correction had failed, or
refused, to follow through on the IRCB’s July 23 decision that had approved his
request for an interstate transfer.  By order dated October 28, 2002, the Superior Court
dismissed Lyons’ petition on the basis that he had no right to serve his prison term in
another state.  This appeal followed.
(5)
Lyons is mistaken that the Department of Correction has refused to
comply with the IRCB’s July 23 decision approving Lyons’ request for an interstate
3By letter dated June 19, 2003, the Department of Justice submitted to this Court a
status report on Lyons’ application for transfer.
4Clough v.  State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del.  1996).
5Id.; In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
6Ingersoll v.  Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (1970).
3
transfer.  To the contrary, it appears that the Department of Correction has submitted
Lyons’ application for transfer to correctional authorities in Virginia.  At the present
time, Delaware authorities are waiting for a response from Virginia officials.3
(6)
A writ of mandamus is a command that may be issued by the Superior
Court to an inferior court, public official or agency to compel the performance of a
duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal right.4  The petitioner must
also establish that there has been an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, and that no other
adequate remedy is available.5  Ultimately, the issuance of such a writ is within the
discretion of the Superior Court.6
(7)
In this case, the Superior Court correctly determined that Lyons was not
entitled to a writ of mandamus.  Lyons has not demonstrated that the Department of
Correction failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him. 
(8)
It is manifest on the face of Lyons’ opening brief that the appeal is
without merit.  The issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law
and, to the extent judicial discretion is implicated, there was no abuse of discretion.
4
NOW, THEREFORE,  IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Justice