Opinion
I.D. No. 86002026DI.
March 18, 2008.
Upon Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for Writ of Mandamus, Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion to Enlarge the Record on Appeal: DENIED .
ORDER
This 18th day of March, 2008, it appears to the Court that:
On February 19, 2008, Plaintiff-appellant Alan T. Brooks ("Brooks"), a convicted murderer, filed a letter asking this Court to rule on his outstanding Motion for Writ of Mandamus, Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion to Furnish Transcripts. On February 25, 2008, he filed a Petition for Leave to Enlarge the Record on Appeal. That same day, he appealed this Court's denial of his third postconviction motion (and subsequent motion for reconsideration) to the Delaware Supreme Court. Although it is within the Court's discretion to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of his appeal, the Court will consider Brooks' Motion for Writ of Mandamus, Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum and Petition for Leave to Enlarge the Record on Appeal. The Court previously denied his Motion for Transcripts and Family Court Records on February 13, 2008.
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
State v. Brooks, 2008 WL 435084 (Del.Super.).
Brooks is serving a life sentence plus 52 years for First Degree Murder and various other felonies. He has been incarcerated since 1987. Since then, he has filed three postconviction relief motions and numerous motions, letters and appeals. The Court now addresses his latest filings. He is currently incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute ("PSCI"), having been transferred from the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC"), pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
On November 2, 2007, Brooks filed a Writ of Mandamus asking this Court to order DCC to transfer him back to Delaware. He claims that the PSCI is denying him "meaningful access" to Delaware Courts by depriving him of Delaware case law. As a result, he claims that he is unable to effectively research and present legal argument in support of his third postconviction motion.
This is Brooks' second writ of mandamus requesting this Court to order the DCC to transfer him back to Delaware. He filed his first writ of mandamus on September 21, 1994 claiming that prison administrators at DCC made false reports of misconduct in his prison file which were used to facilitate his transfer to Pennsylvania. His complaint was dismissed by this Court and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court on June 9, 1995. Brooks v. Watson, 1995 WL 354940 (Del.).
Brooks argues that this Court must issue a writ of mandamus in order to afford him an adequate remedy. A writ of mandamus is a command that may be issued by the Superior Court to an inferior court, public official or agency to compel the performance of a duty. The writ is appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances where petitioner establishes a clear legal right to the performance of a non-discretionary duty. The petitioner must also establish that there has been an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, and that no other adequate remedy is available. Ultimately, the issuance of such a writ is within the discretion of the Superior Court.
H Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996)H.
H Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970)H.
Id.; HIn re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988)H.
Id.
To succeed on his request for a writ of mandamus, Brooks must show (1) he has a clear legal right to be transferred back to Delaware; and (2) the DCC has a non-discretionary duty to transfer him. Given that Brooks fails to prove either requirement, his petition must fail.
First, Brooks does not have a constitutional right to be transferred back to Delaware. In Olim v. Walkinekona, the Supreme Court held that under Hawaii's interstate transfer compact, which is similar to that of Delaware, a prisoner has no liberty interest in his or her place of confinement. Moreover, the Delaware interstate transfer compact does not confer any right upon prisoners to be incarcerated in Delaware. Because Brooks fails to establish a constitutional or statutory right to be incarcerated in Delaware, has no clear legal right to be transferred.
461 US 238 (1983).
See HDel. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6571 (2001)H (setting forth the terms of the Interstate Corrections Compact).
Second, the DCC does not have a non-discretionary duty to transfer Brooks back to Delaware. To the contrary, DCC has full discretion in executing prison transfers. Given that Brooks has shown neither a clear legal right to transfer, nor a non-discretionary duty on the part of the DCC to transfer him, his claim must fail.
See HDel. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6572 (2001)H(stating that the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections is authorized to do all things necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the Compact in every particular).
Third, Brooks fails to establish that he has been denied "meaningful access" to the Courts. "A prison inmate has a constitutional right to `meaningful access' to the courts based upon principles of equal protection and due process of law." "Meaningful access to the courts involves either access to an adequate law library or legal assistance in the preparation of complaints, appeals, petitions, writs and other legal documents." Although Brooks claims that he has not received adequate Delaware case law, his numerous filings with this Court, which contain extensive citations to both state and federal law, belie his claim that he has been deprived of "meaningful access" to the courts. To illustrate, since his March 1994 transfer to Pennsylvania, Brooks has filed nine letters to the Court requesting dockets, trial transcripts and redacted statements of a co-defendant. He has filed six motions, including two motions for postconviction relief (he filed his first postconviction motion in 1993 for a total of three postconviction motions), a motion to furnish trial transcripts and Family Court records and three motions for reconsideration. He filed this writ of mandamus, a petition for subpoena duces tecum and a petition for leave to enlarge the record on appeal. He also has a current appeal pending before the Delaware Supreme Court. It is abundantly clear that Brooks has ample access to an adequate prison law library. Because there is nothing in the record to show that Brooks is being denied "meaningful access" to the Courts, his request for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.
Parker v. Department of Corrections, 2000 WL 33114351 (Del.Super.); citing State v. Johnson, 442 A.2d 1362, 1364, 1365 (Del. 1982) (emphasis added).
Brooks attached "Exhibit 1" to his writ of mandamus evidences his request for six Delaware cases relating to writs of mandamus. It appears that he received three of those six requested cases. His claim, however, is that he is unable to effectively research and present legal arguments regarding his postconviction motion. He offers no evidence to show that he requested and was denied Delaware case law pertaining to his postconviction motion.
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
On January 2, 2008, Brooks filed a Petition for Subpoena Duces Tecum requesting this Court to furnish him the sealed records of the State's witness, Darneise R. Goodman. The issuance of a subpoena in a criminal case is governed by Superior Court Criminal Rule 17. The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to procure documentary evidence at a hearing or trial. The Court has no authority to issue a subpoena under this rule when there is no pending proceeding. Brooks' trial concluded on March 16, 1987. There are no pending proceedings in this case and thus Brooks' request for the Court to issue a subpoena is DENIED.LEAVE TO ENLARGE THE RECORD ON APPEAL
On March 4, 2008, Brooks filed a Petition for Leave to Enlarge the Record on Appeal. He claims that he has received a copy of Family Court proceedings which will show that Darneise Goodman lied in Family Court proceedings subsequent to his trial. He claims that the Family Court records constitute "new evidence" relevant to substantiating his claim of actual innocence. In its February 13, 2008 Order denying his motion for reconsideration, this Court found that whether Goodman lied in a subsequent Family Court proceeding is irrelevant for the purpose of Brooks' case. Because Brooks seeks to enlarge the record on appeal with material that is irrelevant to the determination of his postconviction motion, his petition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.