Title: Waples v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE L. WAPLES, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 603, 2008 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. S08M-11-015 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0610029325 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 21, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 13, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of  July 2009, 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 appellant, Bruce L. Waples, has filed an appeal from the Superior 
Court’s November 26, 2008 denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The 
appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior 
Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Waples’ opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM. 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2 
 
(2) 
On March 1, 2007, a Superior Court jury convicted Waples of Assault 
in a Detention Facility.  Waples was immediately sentenced to four years at Level 
V imprisonment suspended after two years for one year at Level III probation. 
 
(3) 
As a result of his March 1 assault conviction, Waples was adjudged 
guilty on March 16, 2007 of violation of probation.  Waples was immediately 
sentenced to one year at Level V imprisonment suspended for six months at Level 
IV VOP Center. 
 
 
(4) 
On November 25, 2008, Waples filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  Waples’ petition recites the terms of his March 1, 2007 sentence and 
references, without further comment or argument, title 11, section 3901(a) of the 
Delaware Code, which provides that a prison term “shall be fixed, and the time of 
its commencement and ending specified.”2 
 
(5) 
By order dated November 26, 2008, the Superior Court denied 
Waples’ habeas corpus petition.  This appeal followed. 
 
(6) 
On appeal, Waples argues that his “sentence for violation of probation 
is illegal because the commencement of the probation was indefinite.”  Second, 
Waples argues that his assault of a correctional officer during his incarceration at 
the VOP Center could not have formed the basis of a violation of probation. 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(a) (2007). 
 
3 
 
(7) 
Waples has asserted no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas 
corpus.  In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a limited basis. 
Habeas corpus relief is available only to ensure that the prisoner is held pursuant to 
a legally valid commitment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.3  Waples 
has failed to demonstrate that his commitment is irregular on its face or that the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him on March 1, 2007 
and March 16, 2007. 
 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit.  The issues 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 that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a).  The judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1) (1999); Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888 (Del. 1997); Curran v. 
Woolley, 104 A.2d 771 (Del. 1954).