Case Title: Ward v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 48, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JOHN A. WARD,                       
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 48, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 04M-01-015 
                      
 
Submitted: May 21, 2004  
   Decided:  August 3, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 3rd day of August 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, John A. Ward, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 16, 2004 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In 1978, Ward was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and 
Assault in the Third Degree.  He was sentenced on the robbery conviction to life in 
 
 
-2-
prison as an habitual offender1 and on the assault conviction to one year at Level 
V.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ward claims that the Superior Court committed legal 
error when it denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  He contends that he 
should have been released from prison on November 29, 2000, his short term                     
release date calculated by deducting his good time credits from a “life” sentence of 
45 years.2     
 
(4) 
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 felony, the species whereof is 
plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.’”5 
 
(5) 
We find no basis for concluding that the Superior Court committed 
legal error or abused its discretion in denying Ward’s petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The Superior Court properly found that habeas corpus relief was not 
available to Ward in the absence of any evidence that the Superior Court lacked 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b). 
2 Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894 (Del. 2003). 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
 
 
-3-
jurisdiction to charge him with and try him for robbery and assault.  Moreover, the 
Superior Court correctly found that Ward’s claim that his release date has been 
calculated erroneously is not properly addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice