Submitted: February 22, 2019
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
T. VAUGHN, JR.
consideration of the parties' briefs and the record on
appeal, it appears to the Court that:
appellant, Kenneth Randolph, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court's order, dated June 19, 2018, in which the
Superior Court denied Randolph's motion for leave to
amend his petition for a writ of mandamus, dismissed his
petition, and denied his motion for leave to proceed pro
se as moot. We conclude that the Superior Court did not
abuse its discretion and affirm.
1980, Randolph pleaded guilty to one count of rape and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on parole in
1993. In March 2014, he was arrested on multiple criminal
charges. After a hearing before the Board of Parole (the
"Board") on July 29, 2014, the Board revoked his
parole. On November 13, 2014, his new criminal charges were
dismissed. In April 2015, Randolph filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus. His amended petition and his amended prayer
for relief requested the Superior Court to direct the
defendants to reinstate his parole and sought other relief.
Among other arguments, Randolph asserted that his hearing
before the Board was unfair because he did not receive notice
of the hearing and have an opportunity to prepare. The
Superior Court dismissed the petition for mandamus, and
appeal, Randolph argued that the Board abused its discretion
by holding his violation hearing before his underlying
criminal charges were resolved. He also contended that there
was insufficient evidence to prove that he violated parole
and argued that the Board violated his due process rights.
Because Randolph could not establish a clear legal right to
the relief he requested-including the reinstatement of his
parole-this Court affirmed the Superior Court's
judgment.But the Court also noted that "[i]n
cases involving the Board of Parole, the Superior Court has
an obligation to ensure that the process afforded to the
parolee comports with the minimum requirements of due
process." The Court determined that Randolph had
raised "significant due process issues" and
therefore remanded the case to the Superior Court for the
appointment of counsel, who could help Randolph
"ascertain the factual record and present an amended
complaint in a proper procedural posture, if such a complaint
is deemed by counsel to be appropriate," and leave to
file an amended complaint.
Randolph was appointed counsel, who sought a new hearing with
the Board. The Board undertook a review of the circumstances
of the July 2014 hearing. In an April 12, 2018 letter to
Randolph, the Board summarized its findings as follows:
On April 10, 2018, the Board reviewed the facts of your July
29, 2014 violation hearing. It was determined that you were
arrested by Delaware State Police and charged with PWID and
that you did not report your change of address to your
supervising officer. In addition, you did not participate in
sex offender groups, as required by the Board's December
11, 2012 special conditions. All of these incidents violated
the terms of your paroled release.
On April 8, 2014, you signed a Preliminary Hearing Activation
and Tracking form. By signing, you acknowledged receipt of
the violation report.
At the start of the July 29, 2014 hearing, you were asked if
you wished to proceed with the violation hearing. You had an
opportunity to ask that the hearing be deferred until such
time as you obtained an attorney. You indicated that you
wanted to go forward with the process.
The disposition of the July 29, 2014 [hearing] remains in
effect. You are able to reapply for parole consideration on
July 29, 2018.
June 6, 2018, Randolph's counsel filed a letter informing
the Superior Court of the Board's findings and indicating
that he intended to file a motion to withdraw. Shortly
thereafter, counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which stated
that he had "made a conscientious examination of the
record and the law and has exhausted all reasonable ...