Title: Matter of Pethel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 397, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 2009

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES PETHEL 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 397, 2009 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 27, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: August 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 7th day of August 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, James Pethel, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn 
Correctional Center, seeks to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to 
issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the Superior Court to 
grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and release him from custody.  
The State of Delaware has filed an answer requesting that Pethel’s petition 
be dismissed.  We find that Pethel’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
DISMISSED. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in June 2006, the grand jury indicted 
Pethel, charging him with Arson in the Second Degree.  Pethel, who was 
serving a sentence in Pennsylvania, waived extradition and was returned to 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
Delaware for prosecution under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.2  
Pethel subsequently pleaded guilty to Arson in the Second Degree and was 
sentenced to 7 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 6 
months for Level IV work release and decreasing levels of supervision.  The 
effective date of Pethel’s Level V sentence was March 8, 2007.3   
 
(3) 
The record further reflects that, in October 2008, Pethel 
petitioned for state habeas corpus relief.  The Superior Court denied Pethel’s 
petition and this Court affirmed.4  Pethel then filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus in this Court, requesting that the Court reverse his conviction and 
order the Department of Correction (“DOC”) to release him from custody.  
Finding that it had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus directly against 
the DOC and that a reversal of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in 
mandamus, this Court denied Pethel’s petition.5  Pethel then filed another 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2540 et seq. 
3 That was the date Pethel was originally incarcerated in Pennsylvania.  As such, the 
Superior Court sentencing order effectively gave Pethel credit, not only for the time he 
served in Delaware while waiting to be sentenced, but also for the time he served in 
Pennsylvania.    
4 Pethel v. State, Del. Supr., No. 577, 2008, Ridgely, J. (Apr. 6, 2009) (holding that 
Pethel had not demonstrated either that he was being held pursuant to an invalid 
commitment or that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea and 
impose sentence). 
5 Pethel v. State, Del. Supr., No. 169, 2009, Holland, J. (Apr. 21, 2009). 
 
3 
petition for habeas corpus relief in the Superior Court, which was denied, 
culminating in the instant mandamus petition.6 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.7  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner 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.8       
   
 
(5) 
Because the Superior Court already has ruled on Pethel’s 
habeas petition, his mandamus petition in this Court is moot.  Moreover, 
Pethel has failed to demonstrate that the Superior Court owes him a duty that 
it has failed to perform or that his request for vacation of his sentence is 
properly cognizable in mandamus.  As such, we conclude that there is no 
basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
   
                                                 
6 The record reflects that Pethel’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied 
by the Superior Court on June 2, 2009.  Pethel’s mandamus petition was filed in this 
Court on July 10, 2009, after the Superior Court had already ruled on his habeas petition. 
7 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
8 Id.; In re Brookins, 736 A.2d 204, 206 (Del. 1999).