Fatir v. Edwards
N20M-03-066 JRJ
Del. Super. Ct.Jun 23, 2021Background
- Petitioner Amir Fatir (SBI #137010) was convicted of First Degree Murder (a class A felony) in 1976 and resentenced to life without parole in 1980.
- In September 2019 two MDT members recommended Fatir for a furlough; an IBCC member, Loretta Edwards, allegedly did not forward that recommendation to the CICB/IRCB.
- Fatir filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to compel Defendants to follow DOC furlough procedures and to process his MDT recommendation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, citing 11 Del. C. § 6538(e) (prohibiting furloughs for class A felons) and arguing Fatir is statutorily ineligible and has no right to a furlough or particular classification.
- The court considered mandamus standards, statutory history, and ex post facto challenges, and concluded § 6538(e) barred furloughs for class A felons and dismissed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edwards’ failure to forward the MDT recommendation created a clear duty enforceable by mandamus | Fatir: Edwards unilaterally blocked the MDT recommendation; he only seeks proper processing under DOC policy | Defs: Fatir is statutorily ineligible; no duty to forward a futile recommendation | Held: No enforceable right — statute bars furloughs for class A felons; dismissal granted |
| Which statutory version governs eligibility for furloughs (time of offense vs. current law) | Fatir: Eligibility should be judged by the statute in effect when the offense was committed | Defs: Current § 6538(e) controls and bars class A felons from furloughs | Held: Current statute applies; Fatir is barred as a class A felon |
| Whether applying § 6538(e) to Fatir violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Fatir: Application of a later bar to furloughs penalizes him retroactively | Defs: The statute is administrative, regulating DOC procedures, not punishment | Held: No ex post facto violation — statute is administrative, so retroactive application is permissible |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate given available remedies and DOC discretion | Fatir: Mandamus to enforce DOC policy and obtain consideration | Defs: Mandamus inappropriate because there is no clear legal right to a furlough and statute prohibits relief | Held: Mandamus denied — petitioner lacks the necessary clear right and statute removes court’s power to grant requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spence, 367 A.2d 983 (Del. 1976) (sentencing history and re-sentencing context cited)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standards applied to Rule 12(b)(6) posture)
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (pleading/Rule 12(b)(6) standards cited)
- Distefano v. Watson, 566 A.2d 1 (Del. 1989) (administrative statutes regulating DOC do not trigger ex post facto protections)