Opinion
C.A. No. 00M-05-090-JRS
Submitted: November 3, 2000
Decided: November 29, 2000
Upon Consideration of Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus DENIED and Respondents Motion to Dismiss GRANTED.
Timothy M. Smith, Pro Se Petitioner.
Stuart B. Drowos, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for State Respondents.
ORDER
In consideration of Timothy M. Smith's ("Petitioner") Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (D.I. 1) and the State Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 11) it appears to the Court that:
(1) Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on July 18, 2000 asking that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the recalculation of his good time credits. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility in Wilmington, and brings this action against Warden Raphael Williams and two employees of the Department of Correction who work in the records department, Cindy Wright and Edith Washington (collectively "Respondents"). Respondents, through the office of the Attorney General, filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2000 asserting failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6). Petitioner did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss despite being directed to do so by the Court. (D.I. 12) The Motion to Dismiss is, therefore, deemed unopposed. Id.
(2) Petitioner was sentenced between July 1997 and March 1998 in the Superior Court for the following crimes: Burglary Second, Assault Third, Robbery First, two (2) counts of Contempt/Disobedience, and two (2) counts of Misuse of Mail. The Petitioner was sentenced to Level V incarceration for a total of five (5) years, six (6) months, and ten (10) days, and was committed to the custody of the Department of Correction.
(3) Petitioner maintains in his petition that the Respondents incorrectly calculated his good time credit. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that "[u]nder Truth in Sentencing . . . each individual sentenced to a term of 30 days or more is to receive a state awarded Good-Time [credit] of 2.5 days per month." (D.I. 1) Based on this formula, Petitioner advances that he qualifies for one hundred and sixty-five (165) days of good time credit. This number is actually less credit than the Petitioner has received from the Department of Correction, whose records reflect one hundred and eighty-six (186) days of good time credit. (D.I. 1, Ex. A) Apparently, Petitioner believes that the ninety-one days credit for time served should be reflected in his good time credit figure, and it is this belief upon which he bases his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. In addition to the good time credit, Petitioner also asserts, and Respondents do not contest, that he has successfully participated in the "Key Program." (D.I. 11, Ex. C) This participation has earned Petitioner an additional eighteen (18) days credit as provided in 11 Del. C. § 4381(c).
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a total of two hundred and fifty-six (256) days of good time credit. This number includes ninety-one (91) days of credit for time served by Petitioner before sentencing. The State does not contest this number and the record clearly reveals it to be accurate. Petitioner fails to explain why credit for time served should be included in the number of good time credit days reflected on his prisoner status sheet, and, as discussed below, the Court can discern no justifiable reason for doing so.
The "Key Program" is a drug rehabilitation program offered, at the Multi-Purpose. Criminal Justice Facility.
(4) Respondents point to the controlling statutory authority, 11 Del. C. § 4381, in their opposition to the Petition and in support of their Motion to Dismiss. That statute, at § 4381(b)(1), clearly states "[d]uring the first year of any sentence, good time may be awarded at the rate of 2 days per month. . . ." The statute goes on to state that "[a]fter completing 365 days of any sentence, good time may be awarded at the rate of 3 days per month." 11 Del. C. § 4381(b)(2). Applying this unambiguous standard to Petitioner's sixty-six (66) month ten (10) day sentence results in one hundred and eighty-six (186) days of earned good time credit. This result is, in fact, the same good time credit listed on the prisoner status sheet maintained by the Department of Correction submitted by Petitioner in support of his Petition. (D. I. 1, Ex. A-6)
(5) This Court is empowered to issue a Writ of Mandamus 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." Clough v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 158, 159 (1996) (citation omitted). Disposition of a petition for a Writ of Mandamus on a motion to dismiss is appropriate where a petitioner has not established a clear legal right to the requested relief. Id. In consideration of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pled allegations in the petition as true. See, e.g., Ramunno v. Cawley, Del. Supr., 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (1998).
(6) Petitioner has not shown that Respondents incorrectly calculated his good time credit as reflected by his status sheet. The figure of one hundred and eighty-six (186) days good time credit appears to the Court to be the correct result of the calculation contemplated by 11 Del. C. § 4381. Petitioner has also received credit for the ninety-one (91) days time served prior to his November 7, 1997 sentencing for the Robbery First conviction (1N96040382). Finally, the record reflects that Petitioner has received eighteen (18) days credit for participation in the Key Program. He has received, therefore, all reductions to his Level V time to which he is entitled.
(7) Petitioner has asked this Court to count the time served credit twice, the second time adding that credit to his good time credit even though he has already received time served credit. There is no basis in law or fact to justify the "double counting." Consequently, Petitioner has not met his burden of establishing a clear legal right to additional good time credit, and the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed.
Accordingly, with respect to the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, it is ORDERED that:
(a) Respondents' Motion to Dismiss is deemed unopposed by Petitioner;
(b) Respondents' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED based upon the Court's determination that Petitioner's good time credit has been correctly calculated as mandated by 11 Del. C. § 4381.