Case Title: Meades v. Hosterman, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 239, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT R. MEADES, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RON HOSTERMAN, JOE HUDSON, 
DAVE VINSON, RAPHAEL 
WILLIAMS, and PAUL HOWARD, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 239, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05M-07-011 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 7, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 23, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of August 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Meades, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Meades’ opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Meades filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus seeking to have the Department of Correction credit him with 
720 additional days of meritorious good time.  Meades claimed he was 
entitled to have the additional good time credited toward his 42-year 
sentence, at a rate of 5 days per month, based on his meritorious 
participation in prison work and other rehabilitation programs.  
(3) 
The State filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 
that Meades had not earned the additional 720 days of good time credits, 
therefore, he could not establish, as a matter of law, his right to mandamus 
relief. After a hearing on the State’s motion for summary judgment, the 
Superior Court found that Meades had not established his right to be credited 
with the additional good time.  The trial court, therefore, dismissed Meades’ 
petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to his right to re-file if 
Meades could provide documentation to substantiate his claim that he had 
earned the good time.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
After careful consideration, we find it manifest that the 
judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed.  A writ of mandamus is a 
command that may only be issued to a public agency to compel the 
performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal 
 
3
right.1  The burden was on Meades to prove that he had earned the good time 
which he claimed should have been credited against his sentence.  We find 
no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that Meades had failed to 
establish a clear legal right to the relief he sought. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996).