Title: Matter of Perez
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 109, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF RICHARD PEREZ
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
  No. 109, 2001
Submitted: March 23, 2001
Decided:
May 14, 2000
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
  
O R D E R
This 14th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of mandamus filed by Richard Perez and the answer and motion to
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Perez has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus to be
directed to the Department of Correction and personnel in that agency.  It
appears that Perez alleges that correctional authorities have incorrectly
calculated a Superior Court sentence imposed in April 19931 (and
corrected on July 28, 2000) and have failed to given him credit for time he
spent in the State of Maryland’s penal system.
(2)
It is well-settled Delaware law that “[t]his Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is limited to instances when a
                                                  
1 State v. Perez, Del. Super., Cr.A.No. IN91-11-0929, Alford, J. (April 26, 1993).
2
respondent is a court or a judge thereof.”2  Accordingly, Perez’ petition
must be dismissed, because it requests the issuance of a writ to the
Department of Correction.
(3)
Moreover, this Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial
court only when the petitioner can show that there is the clear right to the
performance of a duty by the trial court, and that the trial court has
arbitrarily refused or has failed to perform the duty.3  Here, Perez has not
demonstrated that he has initiated the appropriate legal process in the
Superior Court to effect a review of the Department of Correction’s
calculation of his sentence.  Because Perez has not demonstrated that he
has the clear right to any performance of a duty by the Superior Court, he
cannot prevail on a claim that the court has arbitrarily refused or failed to
perform a duty.  Accordingly, Perez’ petition for a writ of mandamus must
be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                  
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); In re Hitchens, Del. Supr., 600 A.2d 37, 38 (1991).
3 In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).