Case Title: Winward v. Carroll

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Winward, Del. Super., Def. ID No. 88003819DI.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRIAN J. WINWARD,
§
§
No. 1, 2006
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware in and
v.
§
for Sussex County in C.A.
§
No. 05M-11-023.
THOMAS CARROLL,
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
Def. ID No. 88003819DI
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  February 27, 2006
Decided: June 5, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 5   day of June 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
th
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Brian J. Winward, filed an appeal from the Superior
Court’s order dated December 5, 2005 that dismissed his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.  It is manifest on the face of Winward’s opening brief that the
appeal is without merit.  Accordingly, we affirm.
(2)
Winward is serving a mandatory twenty-four year prison sentence
that was imposed by the Superior Court in 1989 and later amended in 1995.1
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
2
Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)); In re Pitt, 541 A.2d 554, 557 (Del.
3
1988); Skinner v. State, 135 A.2d 612, 613 (Del. 1957) (citing Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d
771 (Del. 1954)).
Dorbolo v. Sullivan, 450 A.2d 1185, 1186 (Del, 1982).  See also Evans v. Snyder,
4
2001 WL 1586854 (Del. Supr.) (holding that restriction of privileges within institution is not
subject to habeas corpus review); Holland v. State, 1995 WL 715812 (Del. Supr.) (holding
that habeas corpus is not a remedy to review prison management decisions).
2
On November 25, 2005, Winward filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
in the Superior Court followed, on November 30, by a motion for
reconsideration.  
(3)
Winward claimed that the prison was unlawfully detaining him in
the maximum security unit.  The Superior Court denied Winward’s habeas
corpus petition on the basis that the court did not “micro-manage”
classifications within the Department of Correction, and that he was being held
legally pursuant to a 1989 sentence.  This appeal followed.
(4)
The writ of habeas corpus under Delaware law provides relief on
a very limited basis.   Habeas corpus is not available to a petitioner who is
2
“committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof
is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.”   “Habeas corpus is limited
3
to that issue and should not be used to explore the reasons for classification
within the prison system.”4
3
(5)
Winward argues on appeal that the Superior Court should have
provided relief by way of mandamus, injunction or some other mechanism.
Winward, however, has failed to establish that he is entitled to such relief.  The
Superior Court did not err when it summarily dismissed Winward’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice