Mahan v. Department of Correction Record Dept.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT J. MAHAN, § § Petitioner Below§ § Appellant, § v. § § DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION § § RECORD DEPARTMENT, § Respondent Below§ § Appellee. No. 330, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. N12C-05-233 Submitted: June 28, 2012 Decided: July 30, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 30th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the State s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Robert Mahan, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s order, dated June 4, 2012, which summarily dismissed his complaint seeking a Certification of Question of Law. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Mahan s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) The record reflects that, on May 29, 2012, Mahan filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court entitled Petition for a Certification of Question of Law. The petition requested the Superior Court to certify a question of law to this Court to address whether 11 Del. C. § 4381(c) permits the Department of Correction to award earned good time credit to an inmate prior to the first day of the following calendar month in which the credit is earned. The Superior Court summarily dismissed Mahan s petition on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction, under the circumstances, to award the relief Mahan sought. (3) We agree with the Superior Court s conclusion. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 41(a), the Superior Court may certify a question of law to this Court when the Superior Court determines that there is an important reason to do so. Mahan misapprehends the procedure for certification, however. The question sought to be certified must first be presented to the Superior Court for decision in any case before it prior to the entry of final judgment. 1 Mahan s petition did not seek a final judgment from the Superior Court but instead simply sought to bypass presenting the issue to the Superior Court for a ruling in the first instance. 1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 41(a) (2012) 2 Under the circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to act on Mahan s petition to certify a question of law. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief 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.
