Matter of Postles

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ARVIL POSTLES FOR A WRIT OF MODIFICATION OR REDUCTION. No. 126, 2000 Submitted: April 5, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and HARTNETT, Justices. ORDER This 25th day of April 2000, it appears to the Court that: (1) By order dated November 1, 1999, a Family Court Commissioner committed Arvil Postles to the Department of Correction, Level IV work release, for a period of six months or until Postles paid $3,000.00 on his child support account. State v. Postles, Del. Fam., C.A. No. CK93-4296, Horsey, Comm. (Nov. 1, 1999) (ORDER). The November 1 order provided that Postles was to be held at Level V until space became available at Level IV. The order further provided that the Family Court would review the commitment on May 1, 2000. (2) On March 28, 2000, Postles filed a petition for a writ of modification or reduction in this Court. On April 5, 2000, the State filed an answer and motion to dismiss. (3) Although Postles petition is not properly titled, he appears to seek mandamus relief. Postles complains that he spent four months of his six-month sentence at Level V and then was transferred, inappropriately and in violation of the Family Court s November 1 commitment order, to a holding facility, i.e., the Violation of Probation Center in Georgetown, Delaware. Postles asks that this Court issue an order compelling the Family Court to release him to Level IV home confinement or to Level III probation. (4) According to staff at the Violation of Probation Center in Georgetown, Postles was released to Level III probation on April 14, 2000. As a result, Postles petition in this Court is now moot. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Postles petition for a writ of modification or reduction is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: Randy J. Holland 2 Justice 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.