Title: Robles v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS A. ROBLES, 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 366, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N22M-09-011 
§   
§   
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 30, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 20, 2023 
  
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas A. Robles, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The State has moved to 
affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Robles’ 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
In 2016, Robles pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count 
of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, one count of home 
invasion, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree assault.  
The Superior Court sentenced Robles to an aggregate of twenty-four years of 
2 
 
incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  Robles did not appeal, 
nor did he file a motion for postconviction relief. 
(3) 
On September 2, 2022, Robles filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus in the Superior Court, alleging “denial of due process.”  The Superior Court 
denied the petition, finding Robles to be legally detained.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief, Robles argues that he was denied due process in 
the proceedings below because trial counsel did not seek a psychiatric evaluation to 
determine his competency to plead guilty.  Robles is not entitled to habeas corpus 
relief. 
(5) 
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.1  A writ of habeas corpus may not be issued to any person committed 
or detained on a felony charge, which is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.2  Where the commitment is regular on its face and the court has 
jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to the 
petitioner.3   
(6) 
The record reflects that Robles was charged with multiple felony 
offenses, over which the Superior Court clearly had jurisdiction.  Robles does not 
 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 10 Del. C. § 6902(1). 
3 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Wooley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 
1954). 
3 
 
dispute that his commitment is regular on its face.  Moreover, Robles’ claim relating 
to trial counsel’s performance is not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.4  We therefore conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of Robles’ petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus was proper.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to affirm 
is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
 
 
4 Grantham v. State, 2012 WL 385613, at *1 (Del. Feb. 6, 2012). See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 
61(a)(2) (providing that postconviction relief “may not be sought by a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus or in any manner other than” under Rule 61).