Matter of Panzer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE §
PETITION OF DAVID J. PANZER § No. 413, 2017
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS §
Submitted: October 13, 2017
Decided: November 15, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 15th day of November 2017, upon consideration of David J. Panzer’s
petition for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) Panzer seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, under
Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Superior Court to
review and overturn his convictions for Arson in the Second Degree and Possession
of a Bomb/Incendiary Device. We conclude that Panzer’s petition manifestly fails
to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court. The petition must therefore be
dismissed.
(2) In May 2014, a Superior Court jury found Panzer guilty of Arson in the
Second Degree and Possession of a Bomb/Incendiary Device. On January 23, 2015,
the Superior Court sentenced Panzer as follows: (i) for Arson in the Second Degree,
eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for five years of Level IV Home
Confinement, suspended after nine months for two years of Level III probation; and
(iii) for Possession of a Bomb/Incendiary Device, five years of Level V
incarceration, suspended for two years of Level III concurrent probation. Panzer did
not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment.
(3) A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a
clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is
available; and (iii) the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its
duty.1 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act,
this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a
particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the
control of its docket.”2 A petitioner who has an adequate remedy in the appellate
process may not use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute for a properly filed
appeal.3
(4) Panzer has not satisfied any of the criteria for issuance of a writ of
mandamus. He could have obtained review of his convictions by filing a notice of
appeal from his January 23, 2015 sentencing order, but did not do so. Panzer cannot
use the extraordinary writ process as a substitute for a properly filed appeal. There
is no basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus.
1
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
2
Id.
3
In re Noble, 2014 WL 5823030, at *1 (Del. Nov. 6, 2014); Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d
883, 885 (Del. 1965)).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED. The petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3