Title: Williams v. Williams,et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

On April 20, 2004, the Superior Court also denied Williams’ motion for reconsideration.
1
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DONALD N. WILLIAMS,               
§
     
§
          
§
   No. 166, 2004
Petitioner Below-
§
Appellant, 
§
   Court Below---Superior Court
v.
§
   in and for New Castle County 
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, Warden,
§
                      
M.P.C.J.F., CATHY ROBBINS,
§
Records Department, M.P.C.J.F.,
§
    
    
§
Respondents Below-
§
Appellees.
§
   of the State of Delaware,
§
   C.A. No. 04M-01-003
Submitted: September 24, 2004 
   Decided: November 24, 2004   
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
O R D E R
This 24  day of November 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal
th
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Donald N. Williams, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s January 28, 2004 order dismissing his petition for a writ of
mandamus as factually frivolous.   We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly,
1
we AFFIRM.  
 This facility is now called the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution (“H.R.Y.C.I.”).
2
 I.D. No. 0008022930.
3
 I.D. Nos. 0104018830 and 0105008513.
4
-2-
(2)
In January 2004, Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
requesting the Superior Court to order the warden and records administrator at the
Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, Wilmington, Delaware  to deduct the
2
Level V time he had served on a violation of probation (“VOP”) sentence from an
unrelated sentence he was waiting to serve.  
(3)
In April 2001, Williams was arrested and incarcerated at H.R.Y.C.I.
At that time, Williams was charged with a VOP in connection with a previous
sentence for Burglary in the Third Degree.   In August 2001, Williams was found
3
to have committed a VOP in connection with that sentence.  His probation was
revoked and he was sentenced to 3 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended
after 2 years or upon successful completion of the Key Program.  The record
reflects that, because Williams had open charges in two other criminal matters,  he
4
was not immediately eligible for the Key Program.  It appears that he was not
transferred to the Key Program until he had served 1 year and 4 months of his VOP
sentence.   
 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
5
-3-
(4)
In February 2002, Williams resolved his open criminal charges by
pleading guilty in the first case to Robbery in the First Degree and Attempted
Robbery in the Second Degree and in the second case to two counts of
Misdemeanor Theft.  He was sentenced to 6 years incarceration at Level V, to be
suspended after 3 years, on the robbery conviction; 6 months at Level V on the
attempted robbery conviction; and 30 days on the misdemeanor theft convictions.
Prison officials have calculated Williams’ short-term release date with respect to
all of his sentences as February 13, 2006. 
(5)
In this appeal, Williams claims that the Superior Court abused its
discretion by dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and denying his
motion for reconsideration without directly addressing the legal issues raised in the
petition.  In essence, he argues that, because he served 1 year and 4 months of his
Level V VOP sentence before entering the Key Program, which takes
approximately 2 years to complete, his sentence will exceed the VOP sentence
originally imposed by the Superior Court.  
(6)
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued to compel a
lower tribunal to perform a duty.   As a condition precedent to the issuance of the
5
 Id.
6
 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(b) (1999).
7
 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
8
-4-
writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that: he has a clear right to the performance of
the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the lower tribunal has
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.6
(7)
Williams has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the performance of
a duty by prison officials.  There is no evidence that he has been denied credit for
the time he spent at Level V on the VOP sentence prior to entering the Key
Program and that, as a result, prison officials have incorrectly calculated his short-
term release date.  Williams’ contention that his sentence will exceed the VOP
sentence imposed by the Superior Court is speculative and, as such, does not
constitute an appropriate basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.  Under
these circumstances, we find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
Superior Court in dismissing Williams’ petition as factually frivolous.   We also
7
find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying
Williams’ motion for reconsideration.8
-5-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.  
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice