Title: Andrews v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWIN C. ANDREWS, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 664, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN82-07-0433 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 23, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    June 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Edwin C. Andrews, Jr., filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s December 5, 2006 order denying his 
request to have the Department of Correction credit him with additional 
good time.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In September and November of 1982, Andrews was found 
guilty of various felonies.  He was sentenced to a total of 20 years and 7 
months at Level V.  After being released on parole, Andrews committed new 
offenses in October 2000, and the Board of Parole revoked his conditional 
 
2
release.  In October 2006, Andrews challenged the Department of 
Correction’s calculation of his sentence, alleging that he was entitled to 
credit for an additional 20 days of good time.  The Superior Court denied his 
application, stating that the Superior Court does not have the authority to 
apply good time credits.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Andrews claims that the Superior Court’s denial 
of his application was an abuse of its discretion because he is entitled to 
credit for an additional 20 days of good time. 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a trial court to 
perform a duty where: the petitioner has a clear right to the performance of 
the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the trial court has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.*  A writ of mandamus is the 
proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought by Andrews.  Because 
Andrews did not petition the Superior Court for a writ of mandamus, we find 
no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying his 
request for relief. 
 
 
 
                                                 
* In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                      Justice