Title: Smith v. Danberg, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 773, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NORMAN HENRY SMITH, 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CARL DANBERG, et al., 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 773, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  for the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 10M-11-004 
§ 
§   
 
Submitted:  August 12, 2011 
Decided:  October 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of October 2011, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the expanded record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Norman Henry Smith, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint, which sought a writ of mandamus 
directing the Department of Correction to return Smith to the State of Maryland to 
answer a series of open criminal charges as well as a parole violation.  Because 
Smith cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief sought, we find no error in 
the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on May 3, 2010, Smith pled guilty in the 
Delaware Superior Court to one count of first degree robbery and was immediately 
 
2
sentenced to ten years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving three 
years for probation.  Smith is incarcerated at the Young Correctional Institute in 
Wilmington, Delaware.  On November 1, 2010, Smith filed a complaint in the 
Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing correctional authorities to 
transfer him to the State of Maryland to answer open criminal charges there.  The 
Superior Court dismissed Smith’s complaint on November 16, 2010 for failing to 
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  This appeal followed.   
(3) 
On appeal, Smith contends that he has a right to be extradited to 
Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers1 (IAD) to answer open 
criminal charges there.  He further contends that the Department of Correction is 
arbitrarily refusing to perform its duties under the IAD and that he has no other 
remedy. 
(4) 
While Smith cites the proper legal standard for the issuance of a writ 
of mandamus,2 we disagree with his contention that he has established a clear right 
to be extradited to Maryland under the IAD.  The record reflects that Smith has 
open warrants in Wicomico County and Worcester County, Maryland.  In 
Worcester County, the record reflects that no detainers have been lodged against 
                                                 
1 See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§ 2540 et seq. (2007). 
2 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996) (holding that, as a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of 
mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate that: i) he has a clear right to the performance of the duty; ii) no other 
adequate remedy is available; and iii) the administrative agency has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty). 
 
3
Smith there.  Thus, contrary to Smith’s assertion, the IAD is inapplicable.3  
Moreover, to the extent Smith has an open probation or parole violation in 
Worcester County, the IAD does not apply to such a violation.4  He thus cannot 
establish a legal right to extradition on those charges.  Furthermore, the record 
reflects that the DOC requested final disposition through the IAD of Smith’s 
warrants in Wicomico County, but Wicomico County officials refused to authorize 
Smith’s extradition.  By making the request, Delaware officials have fulfilled their 
duties under the IAD, and no further action is required. Smith, therefore, cannot 
establish that the DOC has arbitrarily refused to perform a duty it owes to him.  
(5) 
Under the circumstances, Smith has not demonstrated that the DOC 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty to which he has a clear right. As 
such, the Superior Court acted within its discretion when it dismissed his petition 
for a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 
granted. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 2542(a) (2007). 
4 Norris v. Redman, 1985 WL 14040 (Del. Sept. 13, 1985) (citing Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 725 (1985)).