Title: Smith v. Williams et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAY T. SMITH,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, Warden
M.P.C.J.F., EDITH
WASHINGTON, Records
Supervisor M.P.C.J.F., M. JANE
BRADY, Attorney General,
Respondents Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 493, 2000
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. Nos. 00M-06-078
§                  00M-09-007
§
§
§
§
§
Submitted: June 14, 2001
  Decided:    July 10, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This tenth day of July 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal, the record below, the Superior Court’s May 8, 2001 report
following remand and the parties’ supplemental memoranda, it appears to
the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Jay T. Smith, filed this appeal from a
September 21, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus.  Smith’s fundamental complaint was that his short-
2
term release date was calculated improperly by the Department of
Correction due to his premature release by the Board of Parole on March
15, 1999, which led to his subsequent parole violations, the revocation of
his parole in January and May, 2000, his re-incarceration and the loss of
his good time credits.  By Order of this Court dated March 21, 2001, the
matter was remanded to the Superior Court for consolidation for decision
with Smith’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which had been pending in
the Superior Court since June 29, 2000, and for an evidentiary hearing to
clarify Smith’s short-term release date.1  The Superior Court held an
evidentiary hearing on May 4, 2001 and issued a written decision on May
8, 2001 denying Smith’s petitions.  The Superior Court’s decision was
correct and, accordingly, we AFFIRM.2
(2)
Based upon his briefs on appeal and his supplemental
memorandum following remand, Smith’s claims can be fairly summarized
as follows: a) because of his premature release from prison on March 15,
                                                          
1Smith v. Williams et al., Del. Supr., No. 493, 2000, Holland, J., 2001 WL 292608
(Mar. 21, 2001) (ORDER).
2Smith filed a motion to compel in this Court on June 6, 2001.  On June 14, 2001, the
Clerk directed appellees’ to file a response to the motion on or before June 25, 2001.
On June 12, 2001, Smith wrote to the Court requesting that this matter be decided
expeditiously in light of his impending release date.  Based upon Smith’s request for an
expeditious decision, we deem his motion to compel to be withdrawn.
3
1999, he can not be held responsible for and should not have been
punished for violations he committed after that date; b) the Board of Parole
had no authority to revoke the good time to which he was entitled on his
TIS sentences;3 and c) at the evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court
improperly refused to admit into evidence a copy of an August 31, 2000
sentence status report from the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility.
Smith asks this Court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court and
order his immediate release from prison.
(3)
There is no merit to Smith’s first claim.  Having received a
windfall from an apparent error by the Department of Correction that led
to his early release, Smith now claims entitlement to another windfall in
the form of forgiveness for violations he admittedly committed after his
premature release from prison.  Public policy and common sense will not
permit such an absurd and unjust result.  Smith remained under the
supervision of the Board of Parole following his premature release and was
                                                          
3These are sentences imposed pursuant to the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989, 11 Del.
C., Chap. 42.  Smith was originally sentenced in 1986 prior to TIS.  From 1993 to
1998 Smith was convicted of committing four separate felonies while released on parole
and received TIS sentences for those convictions.
4
correctly held accountable by the Board of Parole for violations he
committed during that time.4
(4)
Smith’s second claim is also without merit.  Under Delaware
law, the Board of Parole has the authority to revoke good time credits and
re-incarcerate an individual who commits a violation while under its
supervision, without regard to whether that individual was sentenced
pursuant to TIS or pursuant to the previous sentencing statutes.5
(5)
Smith’s final claim is equally meritless.  Our review of the
transcript of the evidentiary hearing reflects that the Superior Court placed
no limitation on the documents Smith sought to have admitted.  At the end
of the hearing, the Superior Court noted that all of Smith’s sentence status
reports had been attached to the Supreme Court briefs and, therefore, were
already part of the record.  When the Superior Court asked Smith if he
wanted any additional documents to be admitted, he said “No.”  The
document about which Smith complains does not contain any information
that would alter the instant decision in any case.
                                                          
411 Del. C. § 4348; Jackson v. State, Del. Supr., 700 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1997).
511 Del. C. § 4352.
5
(6)
A writ of habeas corpus provides “an opportunity for one
illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the
jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment.”6  A writ of mandamus
is a command that may be issued by the Superior Court to an inferior
court, public official or agency to compel the performance of a duty to
which the petitioner has established a clear legal right.7  Smith’s meritless
claims provide no basis for his release from prison since he is not being
illegally confined and he has no legal right to be released.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                          
6Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr., 692 A.2d 888, 891 (1997).
7Clough v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 158, 159 (1996).