King v. State ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSEPH KING, §
§
Petitioner Below, § No. 697, 2014
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for Sussex County
Respondent Below, § C.A. No. S14M-11-004
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: January 2, 2015
Decided: January 23, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 23rd day of January 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The appellant, Joseph King, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. The State of Delaware has
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of King’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.1 We agree and
affirm.
1
Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
(2) The record reflects that, in September 2002, King pled guilty to one
count of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Theft, and three counts of
Burglary in the Third Degree. The Superior Court declared King a habitual
offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) for the Robbery in the First Degree conviction
and sentenced him to twenty years of Level V incarceration. King was sentenced
to a total period of eleven years of Level V incarceration on the remaining charges,
suspended upon successful completion of the Level V Tempo program for
decreasing levels of supervision. King did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
(3) In November 2014, King filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the
Superior Court. King asked the Superior Court to compel the Department of
Correction to find that he was eligible for sentence modification under 11 Del. C. §
4217 and to apply for modification of his sentence. The Superior Court held that
King did not have a clear right to action by the Department of Correction and
therefore his petition for a writ of mandamus was frivolous. The Superior Court
dismissed the petition with prejudice. This appeal followed.
(4) On appeal, King asks this Court to hold that he is eligible for sentence
modification under 11 Del. C. § 4217. Under Section 4217, the Department of
Correction may file an application for modification of an inmate’s sentence “for
good cause shown which certifies that the release of the defendant shall not
2
constitute a substantial risk to the community or the defendant’s ownself.”2 “[N]o
offender who is serving a statutory mandatory term of incarceration at Level V
imposed pursuant to a conviction for any offense set forth in Title 11 shall be
eligible for sentence modification pursuant to this section during the mandatory
portion of said sentence” unless sentence modification “is based solely upon
serious medical illness or infirmity of the offender.”3
(5) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of
mandamus for abuse of discretion. “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 to which the petitioner has established a clear
legal right.”4 As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ, the 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 agency has arbitrarily failed or
refused to perform its duty.5 A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel a
discretionary act.6
2
11 Del. C. § 4217(b).
3
11 Del. C. § 4217(f).
4
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996).
5
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
6
Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Educ. Ass’n, 336 A.2d 209, 211 (Del. 1995).
3
(6) King has not shown that the Department of Correction had a duty to
declare him eligible for sentence modification under Section 4217 or to submit an
application for modification of his sentence. It is within the discretion of the
Department of Correction to apply for modification of an inmate’s sentence under
Section 4217.7 Thus, the Superior Court did not err in dismissing King’s petition
for a writ of mandamus.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
7
Woods v. State, 2003 WL 1857616, at *1 (Del. Apr. 8, 2003).
4