Opinion
No. 520, 2001
Submitted: April 12, 2002
Decided: June 12, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 01M-03-029.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
ROGER L. RUST, Petitioner Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below-Appellee. No. 520, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: April 12, 2002 Decided: June 12, 2002Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice:
ORDER
This 12th day of June 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, Roger L. Rust, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's September 27, 2001 order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In April 1996, a Superior Court jury convicted Rust of two counts of Delivery of Cocaine and two counts of Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances. The Superior Court sentenced Rust to a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 10 years at Level V, to be followed by 5 years of probation.
Because Rust had a previous conviction involving controlled substances, he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 5 years on each delivery count. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4763(a)(2) (2001).
(3) In this appeal, Rust claims that the Department of Correction should be compelled to apply 505 days of good time credits to his sentence, thereby reducing his previously calculated release date. Rust argues that, in denying his petition, the Superior Court erred as a matter of law by relying on statutory language providing that "no person shall be eligible for probation or parole" while serving a "mandatory minimum" term rather than statutory language providing that "[a]ll sentences imposed for any offenses other than a life sentence imposed for class A felonies may be reduced by earned good time . . . ."
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16 Del. C. § 4763(a)(2) (2001).
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4381(a) (2001).
(4) A writ of mandamus may be issued by the Superior Court to lower tribunals, boards and agencies to compel performance of an official duty where the petitioner can show that he has a clear right to the performance of the duty, which the board or agency has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform, and there is no other adequate remedy. In this case, the documentation attached to Rust's petition for a writ of mandamus fails to support his claim that the Department of Correction has arbitrarily failed or refused to apply 505 days of good time credits to his sentence. Because Rust has failed to show, as a matter of fact, that the Department of Correction has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him, he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. We, thus, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, albeit on an alternative and independent ground.
Schagrin Gas Co. v. Evans, 418 A.2d 997, 998 (Del. 1980); Winward v. White, Del. Supr., No. 595, 2000, Holland, J. (Mar. 26, 2001); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10 Del. C. § 564 (1999).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.