Title: Hawkes v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 209, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 28, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH D. HAWKES, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 209, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0803007621 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 28, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of September, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the Superior Court record it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth D. Hawkes, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 17, 2009 order denying his document entitled 
“motion to compel.”  We conclude that there is no merit to the appeal; 
accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In September 2008, Hawkes pled guilty to two counts of 
Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Robbery in the Second Degree 
and one count of Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree.  Hawkes was 
sentenced in November 2008 to a total of eighteen years of imprisonment 
 
2
suspended after six years for six months at Level IV work release or home 
confinement and one year at Level III probation. 
 
(3) 
In December 2008, Hawkes filed a document entitled “motion 
to compel.”  Hawkes’ motion sought to compel the Department of 
Correction (“DOC”) to recalculate his good time credit.  By order dated 
March 17, 2009, the Superior Court denied Hawkes’ motion.  This appeal 
followed. 
 
(4) 
On appeal, Hawkes claims that the Superior Court’s denial of 
his motion to compel was an abuse of discretion.  According to Hawkes, he 
is entitled to 204 days of good time credit. 
 
(5) 
The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when denying 
Hawkes’ motion to compel.  A writ of mandamus is the “proper [procedural] 
vehicle” when a prisoner seeks to challenge the calculation of good time 
credit by the DOC or the failure of the DOC to apply good time credit to a 
sentence.1 
                                          
 
1 Anderson v. State, 2008 WL 187959 (Del. Supr.); Andrews v. State, 2007 WL 1599754 
(Del. Supr.); Pasquale v. State, 2007 WL 2949140 (Del. Supr.); Cochran v. State, 2007 
WL 2812870 (Del. Supr.); Ortiz v. State, 2007 WL 1885122 (Del. Supr.); Ortiz v. State, 
2007 WL 1732729 (Del. Supr.). 
 
3
 
(6) 
In this case, Hawkes did not petition the Superior Court for a 
writ of mandamus. The Superior Court was not required to treat Hawkes’ 
motion to compel as a mandamus petition.2  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDRERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
2 See, e.g., id.