Smith v. Henderson, N19M-05-118 FWW

Petitioner Leroy L. Smith is incarcerated at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center serving life with the possibility of parole (rape in the first degree) and a consecutive 30‑year term (kidnapping).
Smith applied for parole multiple times; his most recent hearing was August 22, 2018, and he is ineligible to apply again for 60 months.
Smith filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Superior Court to order the Board of Parole not to deny parole based on “non‑changeable issues” (the nature of his offenses) and to grant a prompt rehearing of the August 21, 2018 hearing.
Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing mandamus is inappropriate because parole decisions are discretionary and the Board relied on multiple factors beyond immutable offense facts (testimony, records, assessments, criminal history, program participation).
Smith opposed the motion but focused on the merits of his parole application and did not rebut Respondents’ threshold argument that mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts.
Applying Rule 12(b)(6) and well‑established mandamus standards, the Court held mandamus will not lie to review discretionary parole decisions and dismissed Smith’s petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may compel the Board of Parole to refrain from relying on immutable offense characteristics or to grant a rehearing	Smith: He has a clear right because denials are based solely on non‑changeable offense facts; requests rehearing	Respondents: Board decisions are discretionary and consider many factors; mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts	Court: Denied — mandamus will not lie to review or compel discretionary parole decisions
Whether petitioner established the mandamus elements (clear right, no adequate remedy, arbitrary refusal)	Smith: Requests judicial relief asserting no adequate remedy and a right to relief from immutable‑fact denials	Respondents: Smith failed to establish a clear non‑discretionary duty or absence of other remedies	Court: Denied — Smith did not satisfy mandamus elements; petition dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)

Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158 (Del. 1996) (describes mandamus as a court command to compel performance of a legal duty).
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619 (Del. 1988) (sets out mandamus requirements).
Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Educ. Ass'n, 336 A.2d 209 (Del. 1975) (mandamus will not compel discretionary acts).
Semick v. Dep’t of Corr., 477 A.2d 707 (Del. 1984) (mandamus is not available to review parole board proceedings).