Opinion
No. 576, 2005, Cr. ID No. 890007853DI.
Submitted: December 12, 2005.
Decided: February 7, 2006.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 7th day of February 2006, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Joseph Lodge and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that:
The Court has not considered Lodge's unsolicited response to the State's answer and motion to dismiss. See Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(ii) (prohibiting further submissions unless directed by the Court).
(1) Joseph Lodge was convicted in 1990 of Attempted Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree and Assault in the First Degree. He was sentenced to a total of forty years of imprisonment, suspended after thirty years, for ten years of probation.
State v. Lodge, 1991 WL 269901 (Del.Super.), aff'd, 1991, 134474 (Del.Supr.).
(2) In his petition for a writ of prohibition, Lodge asks this Court to "review a [c]ertified [q]uestion" and provide "clarification to the Superior Court and the [D]epartment of [C]orrection" that [n]on-TIS inmates, i.e., those inmates who are serving a sentence not imposed under the Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1989, may receive a modification of sentence under Title 11 § 4217." According to Lodge, the Department of Correction has declined to submit a section 4217 sentence modification request on his behalf, because he was not sentenced under the Truth-in-Sentencing Act.
(3) The Court is unable to grant the relief sought by Lodge. First, the Court has no authority to review Lodge's certified question. Second, Lodge has not stated a claim in prohibition that the Superior Court is exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction. Third, to the extent Lodge contends that the Department of Correction is misinterpreting section 4217, the Court has no authority to issue an extraordinary writ to the Department of Correction.
The Court can accept certification only from the courts specified in Supreme Court Rule 41.
The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to restrain a trial court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction. See generally In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626 (Del. 1988) (examining original jurisdiction of Court to issue writ of prohibition).
In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Lodge's petition for a writ of prohibition is DISMISSED.