Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 406 (2026)

Transfer of convicted persons becoming mentally disabled from prison to Delaware Psychiatric Center; appointment of physicians to conduct inquiry; expenses of transfer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whenever in any case it appears to the Superior Court, upon information received from the Department of Health and Social Services, that a prisoner confined with the Department has developed a mental illness after conviction and sentence, the Court may appoint 2 reputable practicing physicians to inquire of the mental condition of the prisoner and make report of their finding to the Court within 2 days from the date of their appointment, by writing under their hands and seals. Should the report of the physicians be that the prisoner has a mental illness, the prisoner shall at once be ordered by the Court transferred from the prison facility where the prisoner is confined to the Delaware Psychiatric Center.

(b) The expenses of the removal of such a person with a mental illness and of admission into such Psychiatric Center and maintenance therein up and until the time the person is discharged by the Court shall be borne by the State. If any such person with a mental illness has any real or personal estate, the Department of Health and Social Services shall have for the expenses and charges so incurred the same remedy as is provided in § 5019 of Title 16.

11 Del. C. 1953, §  406;  58 Del. Laws, c. 497, §  170 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  170 Del. Laws, c. 550, §  178 Del. Laws, c. 224, §  879 Del. Laws, c. 442, §  281 Del. Laws, c. 79, § 8
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Ford ex rel. Ford v. Wainwright, 752 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1985).
Ford ex rel. Ford v. Wainwright, 752 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1985). “See 11 Del.Code Ann. § 406 (1982) ; Ind.Code Ann.”
Smith v. State (Del. 2017). “2 his sentence because his request to be relocated internally within the Department of Correction’s facilities was not within the Superior Court’s discretion to order and because Smith’s alternative request to be transferred to DPC was not supported by any information from the…”
Smith v. State (Del. 2018). “or Court denied Smith’s motion to restructure his sentence because his request to be relocated 3 internally within the Department of Correction’s facilities was not within the Superior Court’s discretion to order and because Smith’s alternative request to be transferred to DPC…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.