Title: Miller v. Akinbayo

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT W. MILLER,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 546, 2017 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of the   
§ 
State of Delaware  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N17M-11-154 
KOLAWOLE O. AKINBAYO,  
§ 
 
WARDEN, H.R.Y.C.I,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: March 16, 2018 
Decided: 
May 21, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert W. Miller, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it 
is manifest on the face of Miller’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. 
(2) 
In 2015, Miller pleaded guilty to a felony offense and was sentenced to 
eight years of Level V incarceration followed by six months of Level IV 
supervision.1  We affirmed Miller’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.2  
                                
1 State v. Miller, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1412002671 (N). 
2 Miller v. State, 2016 WL 3410306 (Del. May 18, 2016). 
2 
 
Thereafter, we dismissed Miller’s appeal from the denial of his first motion for 
postconviction relief.3   Miller did not appeal the denial of his second postconviction 
motion.  
(3) 
On November 22, 2017, Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus and a supporting memorandum.  By order dated November 27, 2017 the 
Superior Court denied the petition after determining that Miller’s commitment was 
regular on its face, and that he was not being illegally detained.  This appeal 
followed.   
(4) 
When a prisoner’s commitment is regular on its face, there can be no 
relief through habeas corpus.4  Miller pleaded guilty to a felony offense; his 
commitment to serve a sentence for the conviction is valid on its face.  Because 
Miller is being held under a valid commitment, the Superior Court correctly 
determined that his petition and supporting memorandum did not support the 
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                
3 Miller v. State, 2017 WL 568362 (Del. Feb. 9, 2017). 
4 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997) (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)).