Title: Smith v. McBride & Hollis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 4, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEONTAY T. SMITH,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 80, 2016 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. S16M-01-009 
REBECCA McBRIDE, Central  
§ 
Offender Records, STACEY  
 
§ 
HOLLIS, Classification Officer, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Respondents Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 23, 2016 
Decided: 
August 4, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 4th  day of August 2016, having considered the opening brief filed by 
the petitioner/appellant, Leontay T. Smith, the motion to affirm filed by the 
respondents/appellees, employees of the Delaware Department of Correction, and 
the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In 2013, Leontay Smith pled guilty to a number of offenses, including 
four counts of Burglary in the Second Degree.  For the burglary convictions, Smith 
was sentenced to a total of thirty-two years at Level V incarceration—an eight-year 
term for each conviction—suspended after a total of eleven years and successful 
completion of the Level V Key Program, for one year at the Level IV Residential 
2 
 
Substance Abuse Treatment (“RSAT”) Program.1 Upon successful completion of 
the RSAT Program, Smith will begin serving probation.   
(2) 
On January 8, 2016, Smith filed a petition seeking the issuance of a 
writ of mandamus to the Department of Correction (“DOC”).  Smith complained 
that there was a discrepancy between the Superior Court’s sentencing order and the 
DOC’s “Offender Status Sheet.”2  In the sentencing order, the Superior Court 
associated the Key Program with the term imposed for the second burglary 
conviction, but on the status sheet, the DOC rearranged the order of the terms to 
reflect that Smith will not be placed in the Key Program until he nears the end of 
his Level V incarceration.  Smith contends that he is entitled to serve the terms of 
incarceration in the order in which they appear in the sentencing order and thus is 
entitled to be placed in the Key Program after his third year of incarceration.     
(3) 
By order dated February 3, 2016, the Superior Court dismissed the 
mandamus petition as factually and legally frivolous.3  When concluding that the 
DOC is “running the sentences correctly,” the court explained that Smith will not 
be placed in the Key Program until he has approximately thirty months remaining 
                                
1 For the other counts, the Superior Court imposed terms of Level V incarceration suspended 
immediately for probation. 
2 An Offender Status Sheet catalogs “[a]n offender’s legal status while incarcerated including but 
not limited to, committed charges, length of stay, application of good time if applicable, release 
date and conditions.”  See Dep’t of Corr., Policy Manual, Policy Number 3.13, available at 
http://doc.delaware.gov/downloads/policies/policy_3-13.pdf. 
3 Smith v. McBride, 2016 WL 613839 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2016).  
3 
 
on his Level V time.4  Smith claims on appeal that the dismissal of his mandamus 
petition in effect allows the DOC to change the sentence imposed by the Superior 
Court and usurp the court’s authority.        
(4) 
When the Superior Court imposes a sentence consisting of Level V 
time with decreasing levels of supervision, each component of the sentence is 
integral to the court’s overall sentencing plan.5  Whenever possible, effect should 
be given to the court’s intent.6  Here, the Superior Court ordered, and the Offender 
Status Sheet reflects, that Smith is required to serve eleven years at Level V and 
successfully complete the Level V Key Program.  Upon successful completion of 
the Key Program, Smith is to be transferred to the Level IV RSAT Program and, 
upon successful completion of the RSAT Program, he is to be transferred to 
probation.  The Offender Status Sheet accurately reflects the sentence imposed by 
the Superior Court. 
 
(5) 
The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus to the DOC to 
compel the performance of a duty if the petitioner can show (i) a clear right to the 
performance of a duty; (ii) an arbitrary refusal to perform the duty, and (iii) that no 
other adequate remedy is available.7  In this case, for the reasons stated by the 
                                
4 Id., at *2. 
5 Jay T. Smith v. State, 2007 WL 1599988 (Del. June 5, 2007) (citing Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 
1200, 1202 (Del. 2000); Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1267, 1273 (Del. 1987)).  
6 Id. 
7 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996). 
4 
 
Superior Court in its order dated February 3, 2016, Smith did not show that he is 
entitled to the relief requested in his mandamus petition.8  The Court concludes that 
the petition was properly dismissed.    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.     
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice 
                                
8 Supra note 3.