Title: Smith v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY SMITH, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 272, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 80000011DI and  
§  80000542DI 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 30, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 18, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of August 2016, 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, Leroy Smith, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for motion for correction of sentence.  The State has 
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the 
face of Smith’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Smith pled guilty in June 1980 to Rape in the 
First Degree and Kidnapping in the Second Degree.  The Superior Court sentenced 
 
2 
Smith to life imprisonment, with the possibility for parole, plus thirty years.  After 
the Superior Court denied Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 1981, this 
Court affirmed that judgment on appeal.1  Since that time, Smith has filed multiple 
unsuccessful petitions seeking various forms of postconviction relief.  Also, since 
reaching his parole eligibility date in 1995, Smith has applied for, and been denied, 
parole on six different occasions. 
(3) 
In March 2016, Smith filed a motion claiming that his sentence is 
illegal because the Department of Correction (“DOC”) has not provided him with a 
conditional release date.  The Superior Court denied that motion on May 2, 2016.  
This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Smith contends that his life sentence 
should be treated as a term of forty-five years and should be reduced by the good 
time credits that he has earned.  He argues that he is entitled to have the DOC 
calculate his conditional release date. 
(5) 
We find no merit to Smith’s appeal.  Under Delaware law a prisoner 
serving a parole-eligible life sentence may use earned good time credits to advance 
his parole eligibility date, but he is not entitled to conditional release.2  Thus, there 
is no merit to Smith’s argument on appeal. 
                                                 
1 Smith v. State, Del. Supr., 451 A.2d 837 (Del. 1982). 
2 Payne v. State, 2013 WL 6411598 (Del. Dec. 6, 2013) (citing Evans v. State, 872 A.2d 539, 
557 (Del. 2005)). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice