Title: Warren v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
BRIAN WARREN,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 441, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   C.A. No. 04M-09-016 
                      
 
Submitted: October 22, 2004  
Decided:    December 17, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of December 2004, 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 petitioner-appellant, Brian Warren, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 29, 2004 order dismissing his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the 
 
 
-2-
face of Warren’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Warren pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge 
on March 12, 1999 and was sentenced to a term of Level V imprisonment, to be 
followed by probation.  Warren was found in violation of his probation on three 
separate occasions between that date and January 30, 2004.  The Superior Court 
docket also reflects that Warren filed six unsuccessful petitions for a writ of habeas 
corpus, as well as two unsuccessful motions for sentence reduction, in the Superior 
Court before filing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus that resulted in the 
instant appeal.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Warren claims that he has not been credited with 8 
months of Level V time he previously served.  He requests credit for this Level V 
time and immediate release.  Warren does not provide any documentation in 
support of his allegation.   
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus affords 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 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-3-
commitment.”3  “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.’”4   
 
(5) 
Warren has presented no evidence that the felony drug charge to 
which he pleaded guilty was not valid on its face or that there were any 
jurisdictional defects.  We, thus, find no abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court in dismissing Warren’s repetitive habeas corpus petition.5   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Warren’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by Delaware 
law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice 
 
 
                                                 
3 Id. 
4 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
5 Desmond v. State, Del. Supr., No. 692, 2002, Holland, J. (Mar. 20, 2003).