Case Title: Correa v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 654, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GUANGO F. CORREA, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 654, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 06M-011-014 
§  Cr. ID No. 0205013182 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 22, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of March 2007, 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 petitioner-appellant, Guango F. Correa, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s November 30, 2006, order denying his petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 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
 
(2) 
In November 2002, Correa pleaded guilty to Assault in the 
Second Degree.  He was sentenced to five years of Level V incarceration, to 
be suspended after two years for two years and nine months of decreasing 
levels of probation.  Correa subsequently was found to have committed a 
violation of probation (“VOP”) and was re-sentenced on July 27, 2006, to 
two years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after thirty days for 1½ 
years of decreasing levels of probation.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Correa appears to claim that he was erroneously 
charged with a VOP under an improper name.  He points to the list of aliases 
on his July 27, 2006, VOP sentencing order as support for this claim.     
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.1  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.”2  “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.’”3 
                                          
 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 Id. 
3 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
 
3
 
(5) 
The record reflects that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to 
impose Correa’s VOP sentence and that his VOP sentencing order was 
regular on its face.  Although it is true that a number of Correa’s aliases are 
listed on the last page of the sentencing order, that alone does not 
demonstrate that Correa was erroneously charged with a VOP under an 
improper name.  Because Correa has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled 
to habeas corpus relief, the Superior Court properly denied Correa’s habeas 
corpus petition. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 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, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), that the State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice