Andrews v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN C. ANDREWS, JR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 664, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN82-07-0433 Submitted: April 23, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 5th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Edwin C. Andrews, Jr., filed an appeal from the Superior Court s December 5, 2006 order denying his request to have the Department of Correction credit him with additional good time. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) In September and November of 1982, Andrews was found guilty of various felonies. He was sentenced to a total of 20 years and 7 months at Level V. After being released on parole, Andrews committed new offenses in October 2000, and the Board of Parole revoked his conditional release. In October 2006, Andrews challenged the Department of Correction s calculation of his sentence, alleging that he was entitled to credit for an additional 20 days of good time. The Superior Court denied his application, stating that the Superior Court does not have the authority to apply good time credits. (3) In this appeal, Andrews claims that the Superior Court s denial of his application was an abuse of its discretion because he is entitled to credit for an additional 20 days of good time. (4) A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a trial court to perform a duty where: the petitioner has a clear right to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.* A writ of mandamus is the proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought by Andrews. Because Andrews did not petition the Superior Court for a writ of mandamus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying his request for relief. * In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs 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.
