Case Title: Hartmann v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 54, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DETLEF HARTMANN, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 54, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K23M-01-025 
§  Crim. ID No. 9912000027 (K) 
§                           
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   March 8, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 17, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Detlef Hartmann, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order, dated January 27, 2023, 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 Hartmann’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In March 2001, Hartmann pleaded guilty to second-degree unlawful 
sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The Superior Court 
2 
 
sentenced Hartmann to a total of nineteen years of imprisonment, to be suspended 
after ten years for decreasing levels of supervision.1 
(3) 
In 2012, the Superior Court found Hartmann to be in violation of 
probation (“VOP”) and sentenced him for that violation.  Hartmann appealed, and 
this Court affirmed.2   
(4) 
In 2019, the Superior Court found Hartmann to be in violation of 
probation for a second time.  The court sentenced Hartmann as follows:  (i) for the 
first count of unlawful sexual contact, to two years at Level V Transitions Sex 
Offender Program; and (ii) for the second count of unlawful sexual contact, to two 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year and successful completion 
of the Transitions Sex Offender Program for two years of Level III probation.  This 
Court affirmed.3 
(5) 
In January 2023, Hartmann filed documents in the Superior Court in 
which he sought a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition.  The Superior 
Court denied the request, holding that Hartmann was not entitled to habeas corpus 
relief because Hartmann was legally detained under the 2019 VOP sentence order.  
Specifically, the court stated that the 2019 VOP sentence order provided for 
suspension of the two-year sentence for the second count of unlawful sexual contact 
 
1 Hartmann v. State, 2013 WL 434052, at *1 (Del. Feb. 4, 2013). 
2 Id. 
3 Hartmann v. State, 2019 WL 6813986 (Del. Dec. 12, 2019). 
3 
 
only after one year at Level V and successful completion of the Transitions Sex 
Offender Program, and Hartmann had not completed the Transitions Sex Offender 
Program.  Hartmann has appealed to this Court.  He appears to claim that the 
Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the VOP proceedings, both in 
2019 and as to the first VOP—or as to new criminal charges that gave rise to the 
VOPs—because of alleged procedural defects in the proceedings that violated his 
due-process and other rights.  For example, Hartmann asserts that he was detained 
without a preliminary hearing; the allegations against him were false and the result 
of malicious prosecution; his counsel was ineffective; and he was confined in illegal 
conditions. 
(6) 
“[T]he writ of habeas corpus under Delaware law provides relief on a 
very limited basis.”4  Specifically, it provides a prisoner with a means of challenging 
an allegedly unlawful detention on the basis that the court ordering the commitment 
lacked jurisdiction.5  “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.’”6 
(7) 
The Superior Court did not err by denying Hartmann’s petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus.  Hartmann is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior 
 
4 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)) (alteration in original). 
4 
 
Court after the court found him to be in violation of probation; the Superior Court 
had jurisdiction to adjudicate the VOP and impose that sentence.7  Because 
Hartmann was being held pursuant to a valid commitment, the  Superior Court 
correctly determined that he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.8 
(8) 
To the extent that Hartmann argues that the Superior Court erred by not 
explicitly addressing his request for a writ of prohibition, we find no basis for 
reversal.  Although the documents that Hartmann filed in the Superior Court referred 
to a writ of prohibition, they established no basis for that relief.  “The writ of 
prohibition is a writ issued by a superior to an inferior court to prevent such court 
from exercising jurisdiction over matters not legally within its cognizance, or to 
prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over which it admittedly has 
cognizance.”9  Hartmann was not requesting that the Superior Court direct another 
court to do anything.  Moreover, to the extent that Hartmann is seeking to invoke 
this Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to the Superior Court, 
Hartmann has not shown that he is entitled to such relief.  Because the purpose of a 
writ of prohibition is to keep a trial court within the limits of its own jurisdiction, 
 
7 See Campbell v. Williams, 2004 WL 339608, at *1 (Del. Feb. 17, 2004) (“In this case, the record 
reflects that Campbell is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior Court, which had jurisdiction 
to find a VOP and impose a VOP sentence.” (citing 11 Del. C. §§ 4302, 4334(c)). 
8 Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996). 
9 Canady v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 681 (Del. 1955). 
5 
 
and we have concluded that the Superior Court did not exceed its jurisdiction, a writ 
of prohibition is not warranted. 
(9) 
Hartmann filed several motions with his opening brief.  The motion for 
expedited review and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis are moot.  The 
“Motion for Attorney Funds If Habeas Corpus or Prohibition Writ[s] Are Denied” 
is denied.  The Court finds no basis for the expenditure of State funds for counsel in 
the circumstances of this case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion for 
attorney funds is DENIED.  The appellant’s motions for expedited review and to 
proceed in forma pauperis are moot.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice