Case Title: Moore v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 358, 2002, 415, 2002, 416, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS L. MOORE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  Nos. 358, 2002; 415, 2002; 
§  and 416, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. Nos. 02M-05-048  
§  02M-06-032 and 02M-06-076 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 16, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 25, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of November 2002, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas Moore, filed these consolidated appeals 
from the Superior Court’s denial of Moore’s three separate petitions seeking 
habeas corpus relief.  The crux of Moore’s contentions below was that the 
Superior Court had erred in sentencing him for violating probation because 
the sentence imposed failed to credit Moore with good time he had 
previously earned.  The Superior Court denied all three habeas corpus 
petitions on the ground that Moore was legally detained.  The State has 
 
2
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgments on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Moore’s opening brief that his consolidated appeals 
are without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
Unlike its federal counterpart, the writ of habeas corpus under 
Delaware law provides relief on a very limited basis.1  Habeas corpus 
provides an opportunity for one illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain 
judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment.2  In 
Moore’s case, the Superior Court had jurisdiction to incarcerate Moore for 
violating probation.  As we have previously have held, Moore’s term of 
imprisonment was valid on its face.3  Therefore, Moore was not entitled to 
seek habeas corpus relief.4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the 
Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 In re Pitt, 541 A.2d 554, 557 (Del. 1988). 
3 Moore v. State, Del. Supr., No. 285, 2001, Walsh, J. (Jan. 9, 2002) (affirming 
Superior Court’s VOP sentence). 
4 Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954).