Title: Lewis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JIMMIE LEWIS,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 253, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 10M-04-043 
§  Cr. ID No. 0305016966 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  May 21, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  June 29, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of June 2010, 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, Jimmie Lewis, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s April 15, 2010 order denying his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved 
to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest 
 
2 
on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree 
and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in October 2003, Lewis was found 
guilty by a Superior Court jury of Carjacking in the Second Degree, Felony 
Theft, and Resisting Arrest.  In 2005, he was sentenced to a total of 8 years 
of Level V incarceration, 2 years of which were suspended.  In 2009, Lewis 
began serving his probationary sentence.  On June 24, 2009, he was charged 
with a violation of probation (“VOP”) and, on December 29, 2009, was 
arrested in Ohio, based upon the Delaware VOP warrant.  Lewis contested 
his extradition and did not return to Delaware until March 19, 2010.  On 
April 6, 2010, the Superior Court found that Lewis had committed a VOP 
and sentenced him to a total of 90 days at Level IV, with an effective date of 
March 19, 2010.   
 
(3) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus, Lewis claims that he was never properly credited 
with the time he spent incarcerated in Ohio awaiting extradition to Delaware 
and that, therefore, the Superior Court erroneously concluded that he was not 
entitled to habeas corpus relief.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.2  Habeas corpus only provides “an opportunity for one 
illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction 
of the court ordering the commitment.”3  “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.’”4     
 
(5) 
In this case, Lewis does not challenge the Superior Court’s 
jurisdiction to impose his 2005 sentence.  Nor does he challenge the 
Superior Court’s jurisdiction to impose his 2010 VOP sentence.  Rather, 
Lewis’ claim is grounded in his allegation that he should be credited with the 
time he was incarcerated in Ohio awaiting extradition to Delaware.  As such, 
Lewis is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and the judgment of the Superior 
Court must be affirmed.5  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
                                                 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §6902(1)). 
5 The record reflects that, in its order denying Lewis’ habeas corpus petition, the Superior 
Court sua sponte requested the Department of Correction to conduct an investigation into 
Lewis’ claim that he had not been properly credited with Level V time.  Following the 
investigation, the Superior Court, in an order dated April 22, 2010, declined to modify 
Lewis’ VOP sentence based upon the time he spent incarcerated in Ohio. 
 
4 
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 State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice