Opinion
C. A. No. 01A-06-008
Date Submitted, June 12, 2001
Date Decided, August 20, 2001
On the Defendant's Petition for Writ of Certiorari
ORDER
This 14th day of August, 2001, it appears and the Court so finds that:
1. Before the Court is the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Richard Lewis on June 12, 2001, a review of a decision by the Board of Parole to revoke his parole on March 30, 1993. The Petitioner contends that the writ should be issued because he was denied the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution based upon the failure to receive adequate notice that his parole was subject to revocation.
2. Jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is conferred upon the Superior Court by 10 Del. C. § 562. The function of the writ ofcertiorari is to permit "review for a party who considers himself aggrieved by the determination of his rights by the inferior court, without or in excess of its jurisdiction or without compliance with the requirements of law, so that justice may be done for him." Shoemaker v. State, Del. Supr., 375 A.2d 431, 437 (1977). The threshold requirements for the issuance of such a writ are that the judgment below is final and there must be no other basis of review for the claim. In re Butler, Del. Supr., 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (1992). If these requirements are met, the Court's review of the claim is "generally confined to jurisdictional matters, errors of law or irregularity of the proceedings which appear on the face of the record." Id. (citing Goldstein v. City of Wilmington, Del. Supr., 598 A.2d 149, 152 (1991); and Shoemaker at 437)
3. This Court has held that a writ of certiorari is properly issued from a decision of the Parole Board provided the threshold requirements are met and where the petition raises a question of "grave public policy and interest". In re Tarbutton, Del. Super., C. A. No. 96A-04-006, Alford, J. (Aug. 28, 1997) (ORDER at 3) . However, due to the delay in filing the petition, the Court need not reach the merits of the Petitioner's claims. While there is no statutory time limit for filing a writ of certiorari, a discretionary 30-day filing period is been consistently imposed by the Delaware courts in regards to certiorari proceedings. Elcorta, Inc., v. Summit Aviation, Inc., Del. Super., 528 A.2d 1199, 1201 (1987) (see also In re Downes, Del. Super., C. A. No. 86A-JL-1, Ridgely, P.J. (Aug. 18, 1988) (ORDER); and In re Fridge, Del. Supr. 604 A.2d 417 (Table), C. A. No. 372, 1991, Christie, C.J., (Nov. 20, 1991) (ORDER) . In that regard, the present petition concerns a decision by the Board of Parole that was issued over eight years ago. Furthermore, the petition is supported by no justification for the delay in bringing the matter to the Court's attention. In the absence of any such excuse, this Court lacks any grounds upon which to exercise its discretion and consider the merits of the Petitioner's claim.
Accordingly, the Petitioner's application for a writ of certiorari, must be, and hereby is dismissed
IT IS SO ORDERED.