Title: Miller v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS R. MILLER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 400, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. S09M-07-004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 10, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Thomas R. Miller, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s July 6, 2009 order denying his petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm.   
 
2
 
(2) 
In May 1994, Miller was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree and Burglary in the First 
Degree in connection with the rape of an eighty-five year-old woman at a 
senior citizen apartment complex in Lewes, Delaware.  Miller was sentenced 
to life in prison on the conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse and to eight 
years at Level V on the burglary conviction.  This Court affirmed Miller’s 
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1  Miller has unsuccessfully 
sought postconviction relief on numerous occasions since that time.   
 
(3) 
In Miller’s current appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of 
his habeas corpus petition, he claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied his petition for habeas corpus.  He bases his claim 
on his contention that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him 
because the FBI forensic report did not link him to the crime scene.   
 
(4) 
In Delaware, 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  “Habeas corpus relief is not 
available to ‘[p]ersons committed or detained on a charge of treason or 
                                                 
1 Miller v. State, Del. Supr., No. 236, 1994, Hartnett, J. (May 9, 1995). 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
3 Id. 
 
3
felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.’”4 
 
(5) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in 
this case.  Miller, having been convicted of two felonies, is being detained 
on the basis of a sentence of life plus eight years at Level V.  As the 
Superior Court properly determined, Miller has presented no evidence that 
he is being illegally confined.  As such, we conclude that the Superior Court 
properly denied Miller’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
4 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §6902(1)).