Case Title: Evans v. Snyder

Citation: 

Docket Number: 503, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
WARD T. EVANS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT SNYDER,1 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 503, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 01M-09-007 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 13, 2001 
  Decided: December    7, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Ward Evans, filed this appeal from an order of the 
Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The State of 
Delaware has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Evans’ opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
                                                            
1 Snyder recently retired as Warden of the Delaware Correctional Center. 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 
(2) 
In 1983, the Superior Court sentenced Evans to life imprisonment 
with the possibility of parole. Evans filed his most recent petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus asserting that the Department of Correction has violated his due 
process rights by improperly reclassified him to the maximum security housing 
unit and then to solitary confinement within the prison and has illegally 
restrained him by restricting his movement and his access to other privileges 
within the institution. Evans contends that he is being improperly punished by 
correctional authorities for his refusal to participate in programs within the 
institution that were not required by the Superior Court’s sentencing order. 
(3) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus “provides relief on a very 
limited basis.”3  It is available only to insure that the petitioning prisoner is 
being held pursuant to a legally valid commitment issued by a court of 
competent jurisdiction.4  Accordingly, Evans’ present complaints about the 
restriction of his institutional privileges due to his refusal to participate in 
rehabilitative programs are not subject to review through a writ of habeas 
corpus. 
(4) 
Accordingly, we find it manifest on the face of Evans’ opening 
brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal 
                                                            
3 Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr., 692 A.2d 888, 891 (1997).   
3 
clearly are controlled by settled Delaware law, and, to the extent that judicial 
discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
4 Id.; Curran v. Woolley, Del. Supr., 104 A.2d 771 (1954).