Opinion
C.A. Nos. 00M-09-007 00M-06-078
Date Submitted: May 4, 2001
Date Decided: May 8, 2001
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This 8th day of May, 2001 upon remand from the Supreme Court, No. 493, 2000 to the Superior Court, pursuant to the Supreme Court's Order, this Court has consolidated Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus and writ of mandamus and conducted a hearing on May 4, 2001; it appears that:
C.A. No. 00M-09-007.
C.A. No. 00M-06-078.
I. Findings of Fact
(1) Petitioner was released on parole on March 15, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Petitioner was arrested for a parole violation for which the Board of Parole revoked parole on January 4, 2000 and ordered that Petitioner lose all previously earned good time. Following that he was re-paroled to Level IV. Petitioner was again arrested for violation of parole on February 16, 2000. On May 2, 2000, the Board of Parole revoked parole and ordered that Petitioner lose all previously ordered good time. After the Board of Parole's January 4, 2000 and May 2, 2000 orders, the Department of Corrections respectively revoked all of Petitioner's previously earned good time on both his non-TIS and TIS sentences. The Department of Corrections, through Deputy Warden George Hawthorne, indicates petitioner's short-time release date is August 19, 2001.
(2) Petitioner's history starts in 1986 when he was convicted and sentenced prior to Truth-in-Sentencing to fourteen years and nine months. From 1986 to present Petitioner has been paroled and subsequently convicted of various felonies and sentenced pursuant to TIS guidelines. In total, Petitioner was convicted four times and each TIS sentence interrupted the 1986 non-TIS sentence.
Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as follows: December 3, 1993 — Attempted Burglary 3rd, 9 months Level V; July 27, 1994 — Escape After Conviction, 6 months Level V; August 2, 1994 — Terroristic Threatening, 30 days Level V with 15 days credit; June 22, 1998 — Possession with Intent to Deliver, 3 months Level V.
(3) Petitioner claims that his short-term release date has been calculated improperly due to the improper March 15, 1999 release. Petitioner claims the correct short-term release date has passed and therefore he is being held illegally. Petitioner argued at the hearing that the Board of Parole lacks jurisdiction to revoke good time credit earned on TIS sentences. Therefore, he argued, in following the Board of Parole's order, the Department of Corrections incorrectly calculated his short-term release date after parole was revoked in January and May, 2000. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the Court should use its "equitable" powers to reinstate the 480 days taken away by the Board of Parole on January 5, upon adjudicating him guilty of violation of parole, since he was erroneously released on March 15, 1999, due to no fault of his own.
(4) The State argues that Petitioner's sentence has been properly calculated and the current short-term release date, August 19, 2001 is correct. At the hearing the State presented the testimony of the Deputy Hawthorne testified about how Petitioner's short-term release date has been calculated. Deputy Hawthorne also provided the Court with a chart, submitted as State's Exhibit 1, detailing the calculations.
II. Conclusions of Law
(5) Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4348, a person released early on conditional release due to good behavior credits earned "shall, upon release, be deemed as released on parole until the expiration of the maximum term for which the person is sentenced." (emphasis added) A "parolee" under a conditional release due to good time credits remains within the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and subject to the supervision of the Board of Parole. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4352(d), the Board of Parole may "revoke conditional release, or enter such other order as it may see fit," upon finding a violation of the conditions of release. Established Delaware law provides that § 4352 grants statutory authority to the Board of Parole to deduct good time credits. The statute does not distinguish between non-TIS and TIS earned good time.
See Jackson v. Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, Del. Supr., 700 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1997).
See Spurlin v. Department of Corrections, Del. Supr., 230 A.2d 277, 276 (1967); Hall v. Casson, Del. Super., C.A. No. 89M-SE-03, Steele, J. (Mar. 29, 1990) (Order at 2).
(6) The Court finds that the Department of Corrections properly calculated Petitioner's short-term release date based on the Board of Parole order revoking all previously earned good time. Furthermore, the Court finds it may not exercise an equitable remedy and reinstate the good time earned on the non-TIS sentence since the Court does not have statutory jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Board of Parole. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner's short-term release date is August 19, 2001.
Norris v. Casson, Del. Super., 460 A.2d 547 (1982).
(7) Habeas corpus provides an opportunity for one illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the confinement. When a prisoner's commitment is regular on its face, there can be no relief through habeas corpus. Petitioner's short-term release date is August 19, 2001 therefore he is being lawfully held and is not entitled to relief through habeas corpus.
Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr. 692 A.2d 888 (1997).
(8) A writ of mandamus may be issued by the Court 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. Petitioner has failed to establish a clear legal right to have the revoked good time credit reinstated and thus he is not entitled to relief through a writ of mandamus.
Clough v. State, Del., Supr., 686 A.2d 158, 159 (1996): 10 Del. C. § 564.