Title: Jackson v. Williams

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MAURICE V. JACKSON,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 533, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05M-09-102 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 24, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of April 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Maurice V. Jackson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s September 30, 2005 order denying his petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
In March 2004, Jackson pleaded guilty in the Family Court to 
Terroristic Threatening and Assault in the Third Degree.  He was sentenced 
to a total of 2 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately 
 
2
for 1 year of Level II probation.  While on probation, Jackson committed 
new offenses, resulting in his arrest.   
 
(3) 
In June 2004, Jackson pleaded guilty in the Court of Common 
Pleas to new charges of Terroristic Threatening and Assault in the Third 
Degree.  As a result of the new charges, the Family Court found that Jackson 
had committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) and sentenced him to 2 
years at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months and successful completion 
of the Key Program for 1 year at Level III probation.  The Court of Common 
Pleas sentenced Jackson on the new charges to a total of 1 year and 9 months 
at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months for decreasing levels of 
probation.    
 
(4) 
In September 2005, Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Superior Court claiming that he improperly exceeded his 
sentence on his Family Court VOP because it took him more than 6 months 
to complete the Key Program.  In this appeal, he also claims that the 
Superior Court should have granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
because his Family Court sentence was illegally enhanced without a court 
hearing.     
 
3
 
(5) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.1  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.”2  “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.’”3 
 
(6) 
Jackson has presented no evidence that either the Family Court 
or the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for the 
offenses he committed.  Where the commitment was regular on its face and 
the court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does 
not afford a remedy to the petitioner.  Moreover, habeas corpus may not be 
used as a substitute for postconviction relief.4  We, therefore, find no error or 
abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Jackson’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.     
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 Id. 
3 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6902(1)). 
4 Weber v. Albright, Del. Supr., No. 152, 1994, Hartnett, J. (July 26, 1994) (citing Lewis 
v. State, 215 A.2d 433, 434 (Del. 1965)). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice