Case Title: Miller v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 665, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS R. MILLER,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 665, 2012 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
C.A. No. S12M-12-010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§  
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 7, 2013 
Decided: 
March 20, 2013 
 
 O R D E R 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
This 20th day of March 2013, having considered the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm under Supreme Court Rule 
25(a),1 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) The appellant, Thomas R. Miller, appeals from a Superior Court 
order dated December 11, 2012, denying his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The appellee, State of Delaware, moves to affirm the Superior 
                                            
1 The Court has not considered the appellant’s “motion to address,” which seeks 
permission to respond to the appellee’s motion to affirm.  See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 25(a)(iii) 
(providing that there shall be no response to a motion to affirm unless requested by the 
Court). 
2 
 
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) Miller is currently serving a life sentence that was imposed in 
May 1994 after a Superior Court jury convicted him of Unlawful Sexual 
Intercourse in the First Degree.  This Court affirmed on direct appeal.2  On 
December 7, 2012, Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  By 
order dated December 11, 2012, the Superior Court denied his petition.  This 
appeal followed. 
(3) When a prisoner’s commitment is “plainly and fully set forth,” 
there can be no habeas corpus relief.3  In this case, because Miller’s 
commitment is valid on its face, the Superior Court correctly determined that 
his petition did not support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                            
2 Miller v. State, 660 A.2d 394, 1995 WL 301379 (Del. May 9, 1995) (TABLE) 
(affirming convictions and sentences). 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997) (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. TIT. 10, 
§ 6902(1)).