Case Title: Allen v. Morgan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 212, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WALTER ALLEN,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
PHIL MORGAN, Warden, 
H.R.Y.C.I.,   
 
          Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 212, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0304013214 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 26, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 22, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 22nd day of June 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Walter Allen, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s April 11, 2011 order dismissing his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, Warden Morgan of H.R.Y.C.I.,1 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
                                                 
1 The Howard R. Young Correctional Institution. 
 
2
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
On October 24, 2005, Allen pleaded guilty to Robbery in the 
First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony.  He was sentenced on the robbery conviction to 5 years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after 2 years for 2 years of probation.  On the 
weapon conviction, he was sentenced to 3 years of Level V incarceration.  
Allen did not appeal his convictions or sentences to this Court. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus, Allen claims that the Superior Court erroneously 
dismissed his petition.  He argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief 
because he has been incarcerated beyond the maximum expiration date of 
his October 2005 sentence as a result of uncredited Level V time spent 
incarcerated in Pennsylvania.3  
 
(4) 
The record before us reflects that the Level V time Allen spent 
incarcerated in Pennsylvania was on a sentence unrelated to the one at issue 
here.  While it is settled Delaware law that an inmate must be credited with 
any period of actual incarceration when calculating the amount of Level V 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Allen also argues that, contrary to what is stated in the Superior Court’s order, 
ineffective assistance of counsel was never raised as a ground for his petition. 
 
3
time he has served,4 this Court also has ruled that an inmate is not entitled to 
credit for Level V time served on an unrelated sentence.5  As such, Allen is 
not entitled to credit for the time he spent incarcerated in Pennsylvania. 
 
(5) 
Allen is not entitled to habeas corpus relief in any case.  In 
Delaware, a writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.  
Habeas corpus only provides an opportunity for one illegally confined or 
incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering 
confinement.6  There is no evidence in the record before us that the Superior 
Court lacked jurisdiction either to convict Allen or to sentence him.  Because 
Allen’s October 24, 2005 sentence is regular on its face, the Superior Court 
properly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.7 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
 
                                                 
4 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §3901(c). 
5 Brown v. State, Del. Supr., No. 215, 2009, Jacobs, J. (June 5, 2009); Del. Code Ann. tit. 
11, §3901(b). 
6 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
7 While we agree that Allen’s petition was not grounded in a claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, it, nevertheless, was properly denied.  Unitrin, Inc. v. American 
General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice