Case Title: Thompkins v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 538, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BEVERLY THOMPKINS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 538, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 09M-08-016 
§  (Cr. ID No. 0811008522) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 7, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 2, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of November 2009, 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 defendant-appellant, Beverly Thompkins, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 31, 2009 order denying her petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus.  The plaintiff-appellant, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
 
2 
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Thompkins was arrested in November 
2008.  The Court of Common Pleas, which initially had jurisdiction over her 
charges, ordered Thompkins to undergo a psychiatric examination at the 
Delaware Psychiatric Center (“DPC”) to determine her competency to 
participate in the trial proceedings.  In December 2008, the examining 
psychiatrist concluded that Thompkins was not competent to participate in 
the trial proceedings at that time.   
 
(3) 
In January 2009, Thompkins’ charges were transferred to the 
Superior Court and Thompkins was indicted on charges of Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited, Carrying a Concealed Deadly 
Weapon, and Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree.  Thompkins’ 
appointed counsel was sent a copy of the psychiatric evaluation and asked to 
submit additional evidence or request a hearing within 10 days.2  
Thompkins’ attorney filed a motion to have her transported to the DPC, 
stating that he did not believe she was able to participate in the arraignment 
or case review process.  In March 2009, the Superior Court granted the 
motion.  In July 2009, another report was filed by the examining psychiatrist 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §404(a). 
 
3 
opining that Thompkins still was not competent to participate in pretrial 
proceedings.       
 
(4) 
In August 2009, Thompkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus alleging that she was being illegally detained.  The Superior Court 
denied her petition on the following grounds:  a) Thompkins’ claim that she 
had not been indicted was factually incorrect; and b) since early 2009, 
Thompkins’ case had been placed on a special calendar to monitor her 
progress and, based upon the latest evaluations from the DPC, Thompkins 
still was not competent to participate in pretrial proceedings.  The Superior 
Court added that Thompkins’ case was “progressing” and that care was 
“being taken to appropriately address the particular issues the petitioner 
presents.”   
 
(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 
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 
                                                 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4 Id. 
 
4 
felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.’”5 
 
(6) 
The record reflects that Thompkins has been indicted and that 
the charges against her have been plainly and fully set forth therein.  
Moreover, the Superior Court has statutory authority to order a defendant to 
undergo evaluation at the DPC until he or she “is capable of standing trial.”6  
Finally, the record reflects that the Superior Court is properly monitoring 
Thompkins’ status by placing her case on a special calendar requiring 
regularly-scheduled psychiatric examinations in accordance with the 
relevant statutory provisions.  As such, Thompkins’ petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus must be denied.  
 
(7) 
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. 
 
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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice  
                                                 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §6902(1)). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §404(a).