Title: Laws v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
MONROE LAWS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
 
' 
' 
'  No. 160, 2003 
' 
' 
'  Court BelowCSuperior Court 
'  of the State of Delaware, 
'  in and for New Castle County 
'  C.A. No. 03M-02-098 
' 
' 
 
Submitted: May 9, 2003 
  Decided:   June 19, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of June 2003, 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 petitioner-appellant, Monroe Laws, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court=s March 17, 2003 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has moved to affirm 
 
 
-2- 
the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Laws= opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In September 1989, a Superior Court jury found Laws guilty of 
three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with the minor daughter of his 
girlfriend.  He was sentenced on each count to a term of life in prison.  Laws= 
convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2  He has 
twice unsuccessfully petitioned for postconviction relief. 
(3) 
In this appeal, Laws claims that the Superior Court should have 
granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he was illegally detained 
and questioned for over two hours pending investigation of the crime, thus 
depriving the State of jurisdiction.  Laws also claims that the Superior Court 
should have granted him an evidentiary hearing regarding his petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus. 
                                                 
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
2Laws v. State, Del. Supr., No. 376, 1989, Horsey, J. (Apr. 17, 1990). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.3  Habeas corpus only provides Aan opportunity for one illegally 
confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court 
ordering the commitment.@4  AHabeas 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.=@5   
(5) 
In this case, Laws has alleged no facts upon which a petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus might be granted.  Being held for questioning for over two 
hours would not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the charges 
against him.  Moreover, Laws has not demonstrated any entitlement to an 
evidentiary hearing on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Laws= opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
3Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4Id. 
5Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, ' 6902(1)). 
 
 
-4- 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware=s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice