Title: Webb v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM J. WEBB, JR., 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 337, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N22M-08-078 (N)  
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1902015015, 
§  1906000296, 1904001943 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   January 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 13, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm and the record below, the Court concludes that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William J. Webb, 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 Webb’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In June 2019 and July 2020, a grand jury indicted and reindicted Webb 
on multiple criminal charges in Cr. ID Nos. 1902015015, 190600296, and 
1904001943.  The charges included stalking, harassment, and breach of release.  On 
2 
 
May 13, 2022, a Superior Court jury found Webb guilty of stalking, act of 
intimidation, criminal contempt, and multiple charges of breach of release.   
(3) 
On August 16, 2022, Webb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
in the Superior Court.  On August 19, 2022, the Superior Court denied the petition, 
finding Webb was legally detained.  This appeal followed.  While this appeal was 
pending, the Superior Court granted the State’s habitual offender petition and 
sentenced Webb to seventy-six years of Level V incarceration, suspended after 
twenty-five years for decreasing levels of supervision. 
(4) 
In his opening brief, Webb argues, as he did below, that the Superior 
Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because some of the crimes 
were committed in Sussex County, not New Castle County, and some of the crimes 
were misdemeanors.  He also contends that the bail imposed was excessive, the 
Superior Court judge was biased, and his right to speedy trial was violated.  We do 
not consider the other claims that Webb raised below, but did not argue in his 
opening brief.1 
 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3) (“The merits of any argument that is not raised in the body of the 
opening brief shall be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court on appeal.”); 
Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993) (recognizing that the failure to raise a legal 
issue in an opening brief generally constitutes a waiver). In his habeas corpus petition, Webb also 
argued that his counsel had a conflict of interest, there was prosecutorial misconduct, and he was 
deprived of his right to a fair trial. 
3 
 
(5) 
Under Delaware law, 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  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.4   
(6) 
The Superior Court did not err in denying Webb’s petition.  Webb was 
lawfully detained in default of bail and is presently incarcerated in accordance with 
a Superior Court sentencing order.  Webb has not shown that the Superior Court 
lacked jurisdiction over the charges or any irregularity in his commitment.   
(7) 
The Superior Court has “jurisdiction, original and concurrent, over all 
crimes, except when jurisdiction is exclusively vested in another court.”5  Webb 
contends that some of the crimes did not occur in New Castle County, but “[w]hen 
two or more offenses that may be charged in the same indictment or information 
pursuant to Rule 8(a) are alleged to have been committed in more than one county, 
the prosecution may be had in any county in which one or more offenses is alleged 
 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).   
3 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”). 
4 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773-74 
(Del. 1954). 
5 11 Del. C. § 2701(c).  See also Del. Const. art. IV, § 7; 10 Del. C. § 541. 
4 
 
to have been committed.”6  As to his remaining claims, Webb “may not use a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus as a substitute for a timely-filed appeal.”7    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
6 Super. Ct. Crim R. 18. 
7 Johnson v. State, 2013 WL 6044393, at *2 (Del. Nov. 13, 2013) (citing In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 
317, 319 (Del. 1997)).