Title: Nesmith v. Carroll

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
RODNEY NESMITH,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
THOMAS CARROLL and 
REBECCA McBRIDE, 
     
 
 
     
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 538, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 04M-10-061 
                      
 
Submitted: January 7, 2005  
   Decided: February 3, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This third day of February 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Rodney Nesmith, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s November 17, 2004 order dismissing his petition for a writ of 
mandamus.  The respondents-appellees, Thomas Carroll and Rebecca McBride,1 
have moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
                                                 
1 Both are prison officials. 
 
 
-2-
manifest on the face of Nesmith’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  
We agree and AFFIRM.  
 
(2) 
In November 1999, Nesmith pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Second 
Degree, and acknowledged that he was eligible for sentencing as an habitual 
offender.2  He was sentenced on that charge to 8 years incarceration at Level V and 
was simultaneously sentenced for a violation of probation to one year incarceration 
at Level V, to be suspended for one year at Level III probation.   
 
(3) 
In October 2004, Nesmith filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the Superior Court, claiming that the Department of Correction had not properly 
credited him with 276 days of statutory good time.3  The Superior Court summarily 
dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim was repetitive.   
 
(4) 
The Superior Court properly dismissed Nesmith’s petition as 
repetitive.  The record reflects that Nesmith made the same claim in a petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by order of the Superior Court dated 
September 1, 2004.  The Superior Court determined at that time that Nesmith’s 
claim was factually incorrect, since the short term release date on his sentence 
status sheet was October 6, 2006, reflecting that credit for 276 days of statutory 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4381. 
 
 
-3-
good time already had been applied to his sentence’s maximum expiration date of 
July 9, 2007.   
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Nesmith’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the appellees’ motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice