Title: Land v. Carroll

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIE C. LAND,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
THOMAS CARROLL, WARDEN,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 166, 2003
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 03M-02-075
§
§
§
Submitted: July 11, 2003
  Decided:   September 8, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 8
th day of September 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Willie C. Land, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s March 17, 2003 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.  ( 2 )
Land was sentenced by the Superior Court in 1977 to a total of 39 years
Level V incarceration for Burglary in the Third Degree, Attempted Rape, and
Burglary in the Second Degree.  On October 25, 2000, he was released on Level
1The violations alleged were: arriving late for work; failing to report back to the center
immediately after work; speaking to a female civilian through the fence at the center; and pleading
guilty to a charge of terroristic threatening.
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4382.  The Board also permitted Land to re-apply for parole
consideration in 48 months.
3In his reply brief, he presents the additional arguments that he was never notified that a
parole violation could result in the forfeiture of good time credits, thereby violating his due process
rights, and the statute governing the forfeiture of good time credits is unconstitutional.  These
arguments were never presented to the Superior Court in the first instance and we decline to
consider them in this appeal.  SUPR. CT. R. 8.  
4Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
-2-
IV parole to the Plummer Center.  On December 1, 2000, an administrative
warrant was issued for Land’s arrest for violating his parole.1  On February 27,
2001, a hearing was held before the Board of Parole, which determined that
Land had committed a parole violation.  Land’s parole was revoked and he was
ordered to serve the balance remaining on his original Level V sentences.  In
addition, he lost his previously earned good time credits.2  
(3)
In this appeal, Land claims that he is being held illegally due to a
miscalculation of his good time credits.3 
(4)
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very
limited basis.4  Habeas corpus only provides “an opportunity for one illegally
confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court
5Id.
6Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6902(1)).
-3-
ordering the commitment.”5  “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.’”6
(5)
In this case, the record reflects that, after a hearing, the Board of
Parole determined that Land had violated his parole and properly reimposed the
remainder of his Level V sentence, with a deduction of his good time credits.
There is no evidence that Land is being held illegally and the Superior Court
properly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice