Title: Matter of Manis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 176, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
No. 176, 2002
PETITION OF GORDON L.
§
MANIS FOR A WRIT OF 
§
Def. ID No. 9812000028
MANDAMUS.
§
Super. Ct., C.A. No. 01M-11-072
Submitted: April 24, 2002
Decided:
May 22, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of May 2002, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of mandamus filed by Gordon L. Manis, and the answer and motion
to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In October 1999, Gordon L. Manis pled guilty to
Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence.  By sentencing order dated
January 7, 2000, as later modified on February 17, 2000, and October 26,
2001, the Superior Court sentenced Manis to a total of 15 years
imprisonment, suspended after for 30 months for 7½ years at Level IV
home confinement, suspended after 18 months, for the balance at Level III
probation.1  Manis was ordered to be held at Level V imprisonment
pending his transfer to Level IV home confinement.
                                          
1 State v. Manis, Del. Super., No. 9812000028, Silverman, J.
2
(2)
By order dated February 21, 2002, the Superior Court
modified Manis’ sentence to provide that he should be “held at Level III
while awaiting for Level IV in any program.”  On March 5, 2002, Manis
was transferred to a Level IV facility where he is participating in the Crest
program.
(3)
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Manis seeks review of
the Superior Court’s decision dated March 22, 2002, that dismissed as
moot Manis’ November 2001 mandamus petition.2  According to Manis,
his mandamus petition had “sought [his] removal from Key Program
treatment” on the basis that “he had participated in . . . treatment
programs . . . for over the 15 month maximum period allowed by statutory
law.”
(4)
This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial
court to perform a duty, but only when the complainant has a clear right to
the performance of the duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3  In this
case, Manis could have filed an appeal from the March 22 dismissal order,
                                          
2 Manis v. Williams, et al., Del. Super., C.A. No. 01M-11-072, Silverman, J. (Mar.
22, 2002).
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
3
but he did not.  Manis cannot now use mandamus as a substitute for the
regular avenue of appellate review.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  Manis’ petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                          
4 In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del. 1997).