No. 43, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.
July 23, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, CA 98M-01-032.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
CORNELIUS A. HARLEY, Petitioner Below, Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in and for New Castle County, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL CENTER RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Respondents Below, Appellees. No. 43, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: July 23, 1999
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 98M-01-032.
Before WALSH, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 23rd day of July, 1999, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1) Cornelius A. Harley, an inmate at the Smyrna Correctional Facility, appeals from an order denying his petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The petition alleged that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) failed to post to Harley’s account certain good time credits he allegedly earned by working in the kitchen.
2) In his opening brief, Harley argues that the trial judge should have recused himself. Harley contends that, since the trial judge sentenced him, the trial judge was biased and could not act impartially on the petition for Writ of Mandamus. This argument lacks merit. Harley has not presented any evidence of bias or prejudice from an extrajudicial source. To the extent that the trial judge was familiar with Harley because of prior judicial proceedings, that familiarity does not require recusal Stevenson v. State, Del.Supr., 709 A.2d 619, 635 (1998).
3) With respect to his good time credits, Harley argues that the relevant statute, 11 Del. C. § 4381, is ambiguous and was misconstrued by DOC and the lower court. We find no error in the trial court’s analysis and affirm on the basis of its January 21, 1999 order.
4) Finally, in response to the State’s answering brief, Harley submitted a “Petition to Amend the Original Complaint” in which he provides a revised chart of his inmate time records and argues that his original petition was “deficient and incomplete.” This Court will not consider the Petition to Amend, as the information contained in that Petition is not part of the record. Supr.Ct.R. 9(a).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice