Opinion
No. 170, 2003
Submitted: August 15, 2003
Decided: October 7, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03M-02-028
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
This 7th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Raymond Bruton, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. Bruton is incarcerated. He sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Board of Parole to reconsider its denial of his application for parole. The Superior Court dismissed the petition as legally frivolous pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). This appeal followed.
(2) The record reflects that Bruton was convicted in 1981 for delivery of heroin and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He was paroled in 1992. In 2000,
Bruton was found in violation of the terms of his parole, and he was re-incarcerated to serve the balance of his sentence. He applied for parole in 2002.
After a hearing, the Board of Parole (the Board) denied Bruton's application for the following reasons: Bruton's inability to accept responsibility for his offense; his substance abuse history; parole was not recommended by the institution; and his disruptive institutional behavior. The letter recommended that Bruton have mental health and violent offender counseling and informed him that he could re — apply for parole in 2004.
(3) In his opening brief on appeal, Bruton raises several arguments challenging the Board's denial of his application. First, Bruton argues that his parole application was not heard by a quorum of the Board. Second, Bruton asserts that the Board denied his application based on erroneous information.
Third, Bruton asserts that the Board's decision was in retaliation for a civil rights lawsuit Bruton filed against State officials. Fourth, Bruton asserts he is being unfairly denied access to Plummer Center. Finally, Bruton argues that the Board's decision was the result of racial discrimination.
(4) On appeal, we review the Superior Court's denial of mandamus relief for abuse of discretion. A writ of mandamus is appropriate only if the petitioner establishes a clear legal right to the performance of a non-discretionary duty. This Court has held that mandamus will not lie to review Board of Parole proceedings due to the discretionary nature of the Board's actions. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bruton's petition.
See, Ingersoll v. Rollins Broad. of Del., Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970).
Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Educ. Ass'n, 336 A.2d 209, 210 (Del. 1975).
Semick v. Department of Correction, 477 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1984).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.