Title: Mahan v. Department of Correction Record Dept.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT J. MAHAN, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 
RECORD DEPARTMENT, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 330, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N12C-05-233 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 28, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  July 30, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 30th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Mahan, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order, dated June 4, 2012, which summarily dismissed his 
complaint seeking a Certification of Question of Law.  The State of 
Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Mahan’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on May 29, 2012, Mahan filed a civil 
complaint in the Superior Court entitled “Petition for a Certification of 
Question of Law.”  The petition requested the Superior Court to certify a 
question of law to this Court to address whether 11 Del. C. § 4381(c) 
permits the Department of Correction to award earned good time credit to an 
inmate prior to the first day of the following calendar month in which the 
credit is earned.  The Superior Court summarily dismissed Mahan’s petition 
on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction, under the circumstances, to 
award the relief Mahan sought. 
 
(3) 
We agree with the Superior Court’s conclusion.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 41(a), the Superior Court may certify a question of law 
to this Court when the Superior Court determines that there is an important 
reason to do so.  Mahan misapprehends the procedure for certification, 
however.  The question sought to be certified must first be presented to the 
Superior Court for decision “in any case before it prior to the entry of final 
judgment.”1  Mahan’s petition did not seek a final judgment from the 
Superior Court but instead simply sought to bypass presenting the issue to 
the Superior Court for a ruling in the first instance.  Under the 
                                                 
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 41(a) (2012) 
 
3
circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that it had no 
jurisdiction to act on Mahan’s petition to certify a question of law.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice