Title: Wright v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FLOYD WRIGHT,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 219, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 01M-04-071
§
§
Submitted: September 28, 2001
  Decided:   October 19, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 19th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Floyd Wright, filed an appeal from the
May 1, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
In May 1999, Wright entered a Robinson plea1 to charges of
Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree.  In August 1999,
                                                          
1Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 291 A.2d 279 (1972) (permitting the acceptance by the
Superior Court of a guilty plea in the absence of an admission of guilt).
2
Wright was sentenced to 18 years in prison at Level V, to be suspended after 15
years for 3 years of work release and probation.  Since that time, Wright has
filed a motion for sentence modification, two motions for postconviction relief
and two petitions for writs of habeas corpus, all of which have been denied by
the Superior Court.  Wright appealed the denial of his first motion for
postconviction relief to this Court, which affirmed the decision of the Superior
Court.2
(3)
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
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
(4)
In this appeal, Wright claims he should be released from prison
because the Superior Court improperly interfered with the plea negotiation
                                                          
2Wright v. State, Del. Supr., No. 482, 2000, Holland, J., 2001 WL 433456 (Feb. 28, 2001)
(ORDER) (deciding that Wright’s claims of ineffectiveness of counsel, improper denial of
motion to obtain other counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit).
3Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr., 692 A.2d 888, 891 (1997).
4Id.
5Id. (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)).
3
process, imposed a sentence that exceeded the SENTAC guidelines, subjected
him to racial profiling, failed to ask whether he was taking medication before
accepting his plea and improperly stated he could not withdraw his plea once it
was entered.
(5)
The record reflects that this last claim was the only one presented to
the Superior Court in the first instance.  It is, therefore, the only one properly
before this Court in this appeal.6   The claim does not, however,  provide an
appropriate basis for the granting of a writ of habeas corpus.7  Thus, the Superior
Court properly dismissed Wright’s petition.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________
Justice
                                                          
6Supr. Ct. R. 8.
7Wright asserted this issue in a subsequent postconviction motion filed in the Superior Court.