Title: Smith v. Mears

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK W. SMITH, JR., 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TRUMAN MEARS, Warden 
Sussex Correctional Institution, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 232, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N22M-06-093  
§  Cr. ID No. 93007368DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 22, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 30, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening briefs, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, the appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, and the record below, the 
Court concludes that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Frederick W. Smith, Jr., filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Smith’s opening briefs that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
2 
 
(2) 
In 1993, a Superior Court jury convicted Smith of second-degree 
unlawful sexual intercourse, third-degree unlawful sexual penetration, and third-
degree assault.  The Superior Court sentenced Smith to a total of thirty-six years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after thirty-two years for probation. This Court 
affirmed on direct appeal.1   
(3) 
While Smith was on probation in October 2021, a probation officer 
filed an administrative warrant alleging that Smith had violated his probation.  At a 
hearing on November 3, 2021, the Superior Court found that Smith had violated his 
probation and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment, suspended after eleven 
months and successful completion of the Transition Sex Offender program for six 
months of Level III probation.  Smith did not appeal, but did file an unsuccessful 
motion for correction of illegal sentence.2 
(4) 
On June 17, 2022, Smith filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 
the Superior Court.  The Superior Court denied the petition, finding that Smith was 
legally detained.  This appeal followed.  In his opening brief, Smith argues, as he 
did below, that he is illegally detained because his probation officer lied and he did 
not violate his probation.  After the appellee filed a motion to affirm, Smith filed a 
 
1 Smith v. State, 669 A.2d 1 (Del. 1995). 
2 Smith v. State, 2022 WL 2715728 (Del. July 12, 2022) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of 
Smith’s motion for correction of illegal sentence). 
3 
 
request for appointment of counsel and argued that his 1993 indictment was 
defective. 
(5) 
Under Delaware law, 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 
ordering the commitment.”4  Where the commitment is regular on its face and the 
court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford 
a remedy to the petitioner.5   
(6) 
The Superior Court did not err in denying Smith’s petition.  Smith 
offered nothing to suggest that the VOP sentencing order was irregular on its face or 
that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him.    Smith “may not use a 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a substitute for a timely-filed appeal or to seek 
postconviction relief.”6  We will not consider Smith’s claims concerning the 
indictment for the first time on appeal7 but note that we have previously rejected his 
 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).   
4 Id..  See also 10 Del. C. § 6902(1) (providing that habeas corpus relief is not available to those 
who are “committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly 
and fully set forth in the commitment”). 
5 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773-74 
(Del. 1954) 
6 Gordon v. Metzger, 2019 WL 168663, at *1 (Del. Jan. 10, 2019) 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
4 
 
challenges to the indictment.8  Smith’s request for appointment of counsel is denied 
as moot. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, and the request for 
appointment of counsel is denied as MOOT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
8 See, e.g., In re Smith, 2012 WL 3096697, at *1 (Del. July 30, 2012) (dismissing Smith’s petition 
for a writ of mandamus and noting “Smith, in fact, has unsuccessfully challenged the indictment 
against him on multiple occasions”); Smith v. State, 2002 WL 451827, at *1 (Del. Mar. 22, 2002) 
(rejecting Smith’s challenges to the validity of the indictment).