Title: Rust v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 520, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROGER L. RUST,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 520, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  C.A. No. 01M-03-029
§
§
Submitted: April 12, 2002
  Decided:   June 12, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 12th day of June 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Roger L. Rust, filed this appeal from
the Superior Court’s September 27, 2001 order denying his petition for a
writ of mandamus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
(2)
In April 1996, a Superior Court jury convicted Rust of two
counts of Delivery of Cocaine and two counts of Maintaining a Dwelling
for Keeping Controlled Substances.  The Superior Court sentenced Rust to
2
a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 10 years at Level V, to be
followed by 5 years of probation.1
(3)
In this appeal, Rust claims that the Department of Correction
should be compelled to apply 505 days of good time credits to his
sentence, thereby reducing his previously calculated release date. Rust
argues that, in denying his petition, the Superior Court erred as a matter of
law by relying on statutory language providing that “no person shall be
eligible for probation or parole” while serving a “mandatory minimum”
term2 rather than statutory language providing that “[a]ll sentences imposed
for any offenses other than a life sentence imposed for class A felonies
may be reduced by earned good time . . . .”3
(4)
A writ of mandamus may be issued by the Superior Court to
lower tribunals, boards and agencies to compel performance of an official
duty where the petitioner can show that he has a clear right to the
performance of the duty, which the board or agency has arbitrarily failed
                                                          
1Because Rust had a previous conviction involving controlled substances, he was
sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 5 years on each delivery count.  DEL.
CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4763(a) (2) (2001).
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4763(a) (2) (2001).
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4381(a) (2001).
3
or refused to perform, and there is no other adequate remedy.4  In this
case, the documentation attached to Rust’s petition for a writ of mandamus
fails to support his claim that the Department of Correction has arbitrarily
failed or refused to apply 505 days of good time credits to his sentence.
Because Rust has failed to show, as a matter of fact, that the Department of
Correction has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him,
he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.  We, thus, affirm the judgment of
the Superior Court, albeit on an alternative and independent ground.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                          
4Schagrin Gas Co. v. Evans, 418 A.2d 997, 998 (Del. 1980); Winward v. White, Del.
Supr., No. 595, 2000, Holland, J. (Mar. 26, 2001); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 564
(1999).