Case Title: Carter v. May

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE CARTER, 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT MAY, Warden, James T. 
Vaughn Correctional Center, 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 No. 81, 2021 
 
      
 
 Court Below – Superior Court     
 of the State of Delaware 
 
 C.A. No. N21M-03-001  
 Cr. ID No. 0810013184 (N) 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 17, 2021 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 4, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jermaine Carter, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order, dated March 5, 2021, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2008, Carter was charged with more than one hundred offenses.  On 
December 18, 2009, Carter pleaded guilty to first-degree rape, second-degree rape, 
first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree kidnapping, and possession of a 
2 
 
firearm during the commission of a felony.  The Superior Court ordered a 
presentence investigation and scheduled sentencing for a later date.   
(3) 
Before sentencing, Carter sought to change his plea from guilty to 
guilty but mentally ill.  After reviewing a neuropsychological report and conducting 
a colloquy with Carter, the Superior Court allowed Carter to change his plea to guilty 
but mentally ill.  The court then sentenced Carter to life plus forty-five years in 
prison.  Since the Superior Court imposed the sentence on June 4, 2010, Carter has 
filed multiple motions for postconviction relief and petitions for writs of habeas 
corpus, all of which have been denied.1 
(4) 
On February 16, 2021, Carter filed a successive petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  The Superior Court denied the petition on March 5, 2021, and Carter 
has appealed.  He argues that the Superior Court did not engage in a colloquy with 
him when accepting his plea of guilty but mentally ill.   
(5) 
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.2  Habeas corpus provides an opportunity for an illegally confined or 
 
1 On April 2, 2020, this Court found that Carter’s untimely, repetitive, and frivolous filings 
constitute an abuse of the judicial process.  The Court therefore directed the Clerk of this Court to 
refuse any future filings from Carter related to these criminal convictions and sentences unless the 
filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis 
with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that 
motion is first granted by the Court.  Carter v. State, No. 39, 2020 (Del. Apr. 2, 2020) (ORDER).  
Although the Court granted Carter’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, we remind 
Carter that the previously imposed limitations on his filings remain in place and apply to appeals 
in habeas corpus proceedings. 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
3 
 
incarcerated person to obtain judicial review only of the jurisdiction of the court 
ordering the commitment.3  When the commitment is regular on its face and the court 
clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a 
remedy to the petitioner.4 
(6) 
The Superior Court did not err by denying Carter’s petition.  He has not 
demonstrated that the sentencing order was irregular on its face or that the Superior 
Court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him.  Thus, there is no basis for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  Moreover, his contention that the court did not engage in a plea colloquy 
with him is not supported by the record.  The transcript of the hearing at which he 
pleaded guilty reflects that the court engaged in a plea colloquy with Carter,5 and the 
transcript of the hearing at which he changed his plea to guilty but mentally ill 
reflects that the court engaged in a supplemental plea colloquy, after determining 
that a supplemental colloquy was sufficient.6  Carter may not challenge the 
sufficiency of the colloquy through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.7 
 
3 Id. at 891.  See also 10 Del. C. § 6902(1) (providing that habeas corpus relief is not available to 
those who are “committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is 
plainly and fully set forth in the commitment”). 
4 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178-79 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 
(Del. 1954).  See also Skinner v. State, 135 A.2d 612, 613 (Del. 1957) (holding that “after a 
judgment of conviction and a commitment pursuant to the conviction, the only material fact to be 
ascertained upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the existence of a judgment of conviction 
of a court of competent jurisdiction and a valid commitment of the prisoner to enforce the 
sentence”). 
5 Mot. to Affirm Ex. B, at 11:3-24:8. 
6 Opening Br. Ex. C, at 12:9-15:16. 
7 See Skinner, 135 A.2d at 613 (“[T]he writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a writ of error to 
obtain reversal of a conviction . . . .”). 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice