McCreary v. State
405, 2016
| Del. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Shane E. McCreary was sentenced July 31, 2015, to six years mandatory Level V incarceration (two concurrent three‑year terms for two first‑degree robbery counts), followed by six months at Level IV and two years concurrent Level III probation; effective October 22, 2014.
- The sentence order specifically required McCreary to successfully complete a Level V substance‑abuse program (the "Program"); that Program reference appears in the sentencing language for the first three‑year sentence.
- McCreary filed a motion for an order to show cause (July 11, 2016) seeking to compel the Department of Correction (DOC) to place him in the Program within the first three years of his Level V term, arguing DOC had violated the sentence by not doing so.
- The Superior Court denied the motion on July 19, 2016; McCreary appealed that denial to the Delaware Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court treated McCreary’s request as an attempt to obtain mandamus relief requiring DOC to perform the alleged duty of placing him in the Program within the first three years and considered whether such a duty was clear.
- The Court concluded McCreary had not shown a clear right to the timing he sought; placement in programs and sequencing within Level V is within DOC discretion and typically occurs nearer release to maximize program effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC is obligated to place McCreary in the Level V substance‑abuse Program within the first three years of his six‑year Level V sentence | McCreary: Program reference tied to first three‑year sentence creates a duty for DOC to place him in the Program within that three‑year period | State/DOC: Placement timing is within DOC’s broad discretion; Program sequencing is for program effectiveness and not a court‑enforceable timing mandate | Court: No. McCreary failed to show a clear right to that timing; mandamus inappropriate because DOC has no such nondiscretionary duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200 (Del. 2000) (sentencing components form an integrated plan of decreasing supervision)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1976) (placement and classification of prisoners lie within prison officials’ discretion)
- Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158 (Del. 1996) (writ of mandamus requires showing of a clear legal right to performance of a duty)