Case Title: Webb v. Carroll

Citation: 

Docket Number: 425, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden,  
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 425, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05M-07-021 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 13, 2006 
 
Decided:    March 8, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of March 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, William Joseph Webb, Jr., filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In May 1997, Webb pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced to 8 years incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 1 year for probation.  In March 2000, Webb pleaded guilty 
to Assault in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree and Endangering 
the Welfare of a Child.  He also admitted violating his probation in 
connection with his 1997 sentence.  Webb was sentenced on the burglary 
 
2
conviction to 12 years at Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for 
decreasing levels of probation.1  On the assault conviction, he was sentenced 
to 30 months at Level V, to be suspended after 24 months for probation.  On 
the child endangerment conviction, he was sentenced to 12 months at Level 
V, to be suspended for probation.  Finally, Webb was sentenced to 3 years at 
Level V for violating his probation.  
 
(3) 
In July 2005, Webb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Superior Court.  In the petition, Webb claimed that his 2000 sentence 
was improperly enhanced based upon his 1997 conviction, which, he 
contended, was illegal.2   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Webb claims that the Superior Court improperly 
failed to bring him into court in order to decide his habeas corpus petition, as 
required by Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6907.  Webb also requests damages in 
the amount of $1,000 for the alleged failure of the Superior Court to issue 
the writ “without delay” as required by Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6906.   
 
(5) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.3  Habeas corpus only provides “an opportunity for one 
illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court subsequently reduced Webb’s burglary sentence to 10 years at 
Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for probation. 
2 Webb does not address this issue in the instant appeal. 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
 
3
of the court ordering the commitment.”4  “Habeas corpus relief is not 
available to ‘[p]ersons committed or detained on a charge of treason or 
felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.’”5 
 
(6) 
 Under Delaware law, once the Superior Court has determined 
that a writ of habeas corpus should issue, “[t]he Court or Judge, to whom an 
application [for a writ of habeas corpus] is made, shall, without delay, under 
penalty of $1,000 to the party aggrieved, award and issue a writ of habeas 
corpus under seal of the Court, directed to the officer or person in whose 
custody the prisoner is detained, returnable forthwith before such Court or 
Judge.”6  Moreover, following service of the writ upon prison officials, such 
prison officials shall “without delay and within 3 days thereafter, produce 
the body of the prisoner . . . and shall fully certify in writing and under oath, 
the true cause or causes of the prisoner’s detainer, and a copy of all process 
under which the prisoner is detained.”7   
 
(7) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in 
this case.  Webb has failed to demonstrate that his commitment was irregular 
on its face or that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and 
                                                 
4 Id. 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6906(a). 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6907(a). 
 
4
sentence him.  Moreover, Webb’s contentions that the Superior Court 
improperly failed to bring him into court and that he is entitled to damages 
because the Superior Court failed to follow the proper procedures are 
incorrect as a matter of law.  Sections 6906 and 6907 only apply once the 
Superior Court has determined in the first instance that a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus should be granted.  In this case, Webb’s petition did not 
state a claim that would support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and 
the Superior Court properly dismissed his petition on that basis.8 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
   
 
 
                                                 
8 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(b).