Matter of Panzer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DAVID J. PANZER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § No. 413, 2017 § 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). 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
