Title: Hamilton v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 386, 2000, 415, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JEROME K. HAMILTON,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§  Nos. 386, 2000
§          415, 2000
§  CONSOLIDATED
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. Nos. 00M-06-011
§                 00M-03-057
§
Submitted: March 12, 2001
  Decided:   April 12, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED.
Jerome K. Hamilton, pro se.
Gregory E. Smith, Esquire and Ophelia M. Waters, Esquire,
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, on behalf of appellee.
HOLLAND, Justice:
2
The petitioner-appellant, Jerome K. Hamilton, filed these appeals
from the August 2, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus and the August 15, 2000 order of the Superior
Court denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.  We find no merit to
the appeals.  Accordingly, we affirm.1
Facts
On May 28, 1976, Hamilton received a sentence of seven years in
prison for attempted Robbery in the First Degree (IN75-08-0180) and a
concurrent five-year sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree (IN75-08-
0181).2  On July 23, 1976, Hamilton was sentenced to two years in prison
for attempted theft (IN75-12-0279), to be served consecutively to the
seven-year sentence.  On January 24, 1977, Hamilton was declared an
habitual offender and was sentenced to life in prison on charges of Robbery
in the First Degree (IN76-08-0906) and Conspiracy in the Second Degree
(IN76-08-0907).  On December 17, 1987, Hamilton received a sentence of
seven years in prison on another charge of Conspiracy in the Second
Degree (IN86-04-1312) and two years for promoting prison contraband
                                                          
1We consolidated these matters for decision sua sponte because the claims were the
same.
3
(IN86-04-1313), to be served consecutively to the seven-year sentence.  On
September 2, 1988, Hamilton’s January 24, 1977 sentences were reduced
to 25 years for Robbery in the First Degree and seven years for
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.3  The total amount of time to be served
on all of these sentences, prior to deductions for good time and meritorious
credit, is 50 years.4
Hamilton’s Contentions
In these appeals, Hamilton claims that: i) the Department of
Correction miscalculated the time remaining on his sentences, thereby
imposing a longer period of incarceration than the Superior Court
authorized; and ii) the Superior Court abused its discretion by refusing to
provide a transcript of his October 13, 1988 sentencing hearing for this
appeal. Hamilton contends that the Superior Court’s September 2, 1988
                                                                                                                                                                            
2This sentence was imposed pursuant to former 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) (effective
February 2, 1976).
3We note that, despite the parties’ contentions, these two sentences were not intended to
run concurrently.  Under amended 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) (effective July 14, 1977),
concurrent sentences were not permitted.  Even if they had been permitted, the
Superior Court’s September 2, 1988 sentencing order states that only the non-
incarcerative portions of Hamilton’s sentences were to run concurrently.  There were
no non-incarcerative portions of these sentences.
4The State’s total of 43 years is incorrect because, pursuant to the September 2, 1988
sentencing order, Hamilton’s 25-year sentence for Robbery in the First Degree and his
seven-year sentence for Conspiracy in the Second Degree were not intended to run
concurrently, thereby adding another seven years to his sentences.
4
sentencing order shows that his sentences in IN76-08-0906, IN76-08-0907,
IN86-04-1312 and IN86-04-1313 should all be calculated to run
concurrently, beginning on January 24, 1977.  He also contends that,
because he has already served his sentences in IN75-08-0180, IN75-08-
0181 and IN75-12-0279, the Department of Correction has incorrectly
included these sentences in its calculation of the time remaining on his
sentences.
Sentence Calculations
Hamilton’s contention that his December 17, 1987 sentences and his
September 2, 1988 sentences were all meant to run concurrently, as
reflected in the Superior Court’s September 2, 1988 sentencing order, is
without any factual basis.  The Superior Court’s September 2, 1988
sentencing order made no reference to the sentences previously imposed on
December 17, 1987.  The record also does not support Hamilton’s
contention that all of his December 17, 1987 and September 2, 1988
sentences began to run on January 24, 1977.
The January 24, 1977 date has significance only because the
Superior Court initially imposed its sentences for Robbery in the First
Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree on that date.  When the
5
Superior Court modified this sentence on September 2, 1988, its sentencing
order noted that the sentence was “effective January 24, 1977,” but also
noted that “[i]f the defendant is presently serving another sentence, this
sentence shall begin at the expiration of such other sentence being served.”
As such, the January 24, 1977 date does not relate to when Hamilton was
to begin serving his sentences.5  Hamilton’s contention that the Department
of Correction improperly added 9 years to his sentence is also incorrect.  It
was proper for the Department of Correction to calculate Hamilton’s
release date by calculating chronologically all of his consecutive sentences,
even those he has already served, beginning with the date he first entered
prison.6
Transcript Properly Denied
Hamilton’s second claim that the Superior Court erred in refusing to
provide him with a transcript of his October 13, 1988 sentencing hearing is
without merit.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that a sentencing
hearing occurred on that date.  The Superior Court’s sentencing order is
                                                          
5While Hamilton refers to language in the subsequent October 13, 1988 sentence
commitment to support his claim, the language of the September 2, 1988 sentencing
order controls.
6 This is consistent with this Court’s holding in Snyder v. Andrews, Del. Supr., 708 A.2d
237, 247-48 (1998).
6
dated September 2, 1988; the sentence commitment, which was issued
subsequent to the sentencing order, is dated October 13, 1988.  There is no
evidence that a hearing was held in connection with the issuance of the
sentence commitment. Secondly, based upon our conclusion that
Hamilton’s claim of a miscalculation is without merit, he is not entitled to
hearing transcripts in any case.
Conclusion
“Habeas corpus provides an opportunity for one illegally confined or
incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the court ordering the
commitment.”7  “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.”8  Because Hamilton’s claim that the Department of Correction
miscalculated his sentences is meritless and because he is being held in
prison legally, there is no basis for the issuance of either a writ of habeas
corpus or a writ of mandamus, and the Superior Court properly so held.
Accordingly, the judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.
                                                          
7Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr., 692 A.2d 888, 891 (1997).
8Clough v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 158, 159 (1996).