Taylor v. Danberg

Full title: RICHARD D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CARL DANBERG, Commissioner, DELAWARE…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Feb 18, 2001

C.A. No. 10M-08-106 FSS (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2001)

Opinion

C.A. No. 10M-08-106 FSS.

February 18, 2001.

Upon Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus — DENIED, Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment — DENIED, Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment — GRANTED.

ORDER

FRED S. SILVERMAN, Judge

1. In 1971, Plaintiff was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences after he was twice convicted of rape, first degree, a Class A felony. Since then, he was granted parole twice, and on both occasions he repeatedly violated the conditions of parole. Accordingly, he was returned to custody and ordered to serve the balance of his life sentences.

2. Now, Plaintiff has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In essence, Plaintiff claims that regardless of his misconduct in prison or during prior conditional releases, he is entitled by statute to early release or "good time" credit.

3. Specifically, Plaintiff relies on 11 Del.C. § 4381 (a), as codified at the time of conviction. The statute then read:

All sentences imposed for any offenses other than a life sentence imposed for Class A Felonies may be reduced by earned good time under the provisions of this section and rule and regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Corrections[sic].

4. As Defendants observe in their opposition to the petition, Plaintiff is serving life sentences for two rapes, which are Class A felonies. Accordingly, the statute on which Plaintiff relies, on its face, does not give Plaintiff an unqualified right to good time credit.

5. As Defendants correctly conclude, Plaintiff's entitlement to "good time," is a matter for the Board of Parole's discretion.

6. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has an unconditional right to relief, and it appears that the relief he seeks is a matter of discretion, Plaintiff is not entitled to mandamus. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish a clear legal right to relief and his proper remedy is to petition the Board of Parole for relief, which is discretionary, not mandatory.

For the foregoing reasons, the court will not issue a writ of mandamus. Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.