Title: LaTorre v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JOSUE LaTORRE,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 147, 2005 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   C.A. No. 05M-03-010 
                      
 
Submitted:  April 27, 2005  
   Decided:  July 14, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of July 2005, 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, Josue LaTorre, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 24, 2005 order summarily dismissing his petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.1  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the 
                                                 
1 It appears that LaTorre also seeks to appeal from the Superior Court’s May 26, 1999 sentencing 
order. 
 
 
-2-
face of LaTorre’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and 
AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In January 1999, LaTorre pleaded guilty to two counts of Robbery in 
the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and 
three counts of Aggravated Menacing.  As part of its plea bargain with LaTorre, 
the State dismissed several serious felony charges against him.  LaTorre was 
sentenced to a total of 4 years incarceration at Level V on the robbery convictions 
and to 3 years incarceration at Level V on the weapon conviction.  On the 
aggravated menacing convictions, he was sentenced to a total of 7½ years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 2 years for probation.     
 
(3) 
In this appeal, LaTorre claims that his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus should have been granted because his three aggravated menacing 
convictions violate double jeopardy.  He contends that those convictions must 
merge with his two robbery convictions. 
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.3  Habeas corpus only provides “an opportunity for one illegally 
confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-3-
ordering the commitment.”4  “Habeas 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, habeas corpus relief is not available to LaTorre because 
he has presented no evidence that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to 
sentence him or that there was any irregularity on the face of his commitment.  
Moreover, a defendant waives his right to challenge a voluntary and intelligent 
plea bargain that provides a benefit to him.6  In this case, not only has LaTorre 
provided no evidence that his guilty plea was coerced or in any way irregular,7 but 
also his plea bargain provided him with a clear benefit.  As such, we must conclude 
that there is no basis for LaTorre’s challenge to his guilty plea.8 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of LaTorre’s 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. 
                                                 
4 Id. 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
6 Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988). 
7 As the appellant, it was LaTorre’s burden to provide those portions of the transcript necessary 
to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the claim of error occurred. 
Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
8 It also appears that, in its April 8, 2005 sentencing order, the Superior Court dismissed the 
aggravated menacing charges and re-sentenced LaTorre on the first robbery charge in order to 
avoid any potential double jeopardy issue.  
 
 
-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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice