Title: Bruton v. Carrol et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RAYMOND L. BRUTON, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THOMAS L. CARROLL, 
DWIGHT F. HOLDEN, and 
MARISSA MCFADDEN, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 170, 2003 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 03M-02-028 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 15, 2003 
Decided:  October 7, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7
th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Raymond Bruton, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus.  Bruton is 
incarcerated.  He sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Board of Parole to 
reconsider its denial of his application for parole.  The Superior Court dismissed 
the petition as legally frivolous pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b).  This appeal 
followed. 
 
2 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Bruton was convicted i
n 1981 for delivery of 
heroin and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.  He was paroled in 1992.  In 2000, 
Bruton was found in violation of the terms of his parole, and he was re-
incarcerated to serve the balance of his sentence.  He applied for parole in 2
002.  
After a hearing, the Board of Parole (the Board) denied Bruton’s application for 
the following reasons: Bruton’s inability to accept responsibility for his offense; 
his substance abuse history; parole was not recommended by the institution; and 
his disruptive institutional behavior.  The letter recommended that Bruton have 
mental health and violent offender counseling and informed him that he could re-
apply for parole in 2004. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Bruton raises several arguments 
challenging the Board’s denial of his application.  First, Bruton argues that his 
parole application was not heard by a quorum of the Board.  Second, Bruton 
asserts that the Board denied his application based on erroneous information.  
Third, Bruton asserts that the Board’s decision was in retaliation for a civil rights 
lawsuit Bruton filed against State officials.  Fourth, Bruton asserts he is being 
unfairly denied access to Plummer Center.  Finally, Bruton argues that the Board’s 
decision was the result of racial discrimination.   
 
3 
(4) 
On appeal, we review the Superior Court’s denial of mandamus relief 
for abuse of discretion.1  A writ of mandamus is appropriate only if the petitioner 
establishes a clear legal right to the performance of a non-discretionary duty.2  This 
Court has held that mandamus will not lie to review Board of Parole proceedings 
due to the discretionary nature of the Board’s actions.3 Accordingly, the Superior 
Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bruton’s petition.    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 See, Ingersoll v. Rollins Broad. of Del., Inc., 272 A.2d 336, 338 (Del. 1970). 
2 Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Educ. Ass’n, 336 A.2d 209, 210 (Del. 1975). 
3 Semick v. Department of Correction, 477 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1984).