Title: Allen v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES E. ALLEN, 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 325, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 06M-05-130 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 25, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of August 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, James Allen, 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 of the Superior Court on 
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Allen’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Allen was convicted of several charges, 
including attempted burglary and related offenses, in July 2003.  This Court 
reversed Allen’s convictions on direct appeal and remanded the matter for a 
new trial.1  Thereafter, the State obtained a superseding indictment.  Allen’s 
retrial presently is scheduled for September 19, 2006. 
 
(3) 
Allen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that 
the indictment is defective and the Superior Court thus lacks jurisdiction to 
hold him.  Allen contended that the grand jury had indicted him as a 
principal but the prosecutor improperly amended the indictment to charge 
him as an accomplice.  The Superior Court dismissed Allen’s petition on the 
ground that his attempt to challenge the validity of the underlying charges 
was not properly subject to relief through a writ of habeas corpus. 
(4) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court denying Allen’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be affirmed on the basis that 
habeas corpus relief is not available to allege trial errors that can be 
reviewed on appeal.2  Allen’s claim that the State improperly amended the 
indictment against him is in the nature of a trial error that can be raised on 
appeal.3  
                                                 
1 Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447 (Del. 2004). 
2 Golla v. State, 135 A.2d 137 (Del. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 965 (1958) (writ 
of habeas corpus may not be used as a writ of error to review errors in the conduct of 
trial).
3 See Johnson v. State, 711 A.2d 18 (Del. 1998). 
 
2
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
3