IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MAURICE J. WILLIAMS, § § No. 286, 2014 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and v. § for New Castle County § STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Respondent Below, § C.A. No. N14M-05-052 Appellee. § Submitted: August 6, 2014 Decided: October 7, 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY , Justices.

O R D E R

This 7 th day of October 2014, having considered the appella nt’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm under Sup reme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Maurice J. Williams, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated May 16, 2014, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellee, State of Delaware, ha s 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 aff irm.2

(2) The record reflects that, in April 1999, Willia m pled guilty to Burglary in the Second Degree and Robbery in the Se cond Degree. 1 On June 11, 1999, the Superior Court sentenced Williams to a ma ndatory eight years at Level V for the burglary conviction, to be followed by five years at Level V, four years mandatory plus one year at Level IV, for the robber y conviction. 2 (3) By order dated January 28, 2010, the Superior C ourt modified the five-year sentence imposed for the robbery convicti on. Instead of four years mandatory at Level V plus one year at Level IV, Wil liams was ordered to serve what remained of the five-year sentence at Level IV (hereinafter “2010 modified sentence order”). 3 In 2012, we affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Williams’

motion for correction of the 2010 modified sentence order. 4 (4) In November 2010, Williams was arrested for Esc ape after Conviction (hereinafter “EAC”) after he left the Level IV Plum mer Center on a pass and did

not return. 5 Williams was also charged with violation of proba tion (“VOP”). 6 In

1 See docket at 10, State v. Williams , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9901005150 (April 14, 199 9) (referencing guilty plea proceeding). 2 Id. See docket at 12 (June 11, 1999) (sentencing). 3 Id. See docket at 19 (Jan. 28, 2010) (modifying sentence). 4 Williams v. State , 2012 WL 4663065 (Del. Oct. 2, 2012). 5 See docket at 1, State v. Williams , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1011002501 (Nov. 24, 2010 ) (referencing when case accepted in Superior Court). 6 See docket at 25, State v. Williams , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9901005150 (Nov. 18, 2010 ) (referencing administrative warrant).3

December 2010, Williams was adjudged guilty of VOP, but his sentencing was deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings on the EAC charge. 7 (5) In June 2011, a Superior Court jury convicted W illiams of EAC. 8 On January 13, 2012, the Superior Court declared Willi ams a habitual offender and sentenced him to eight years at Level V. 9 For the VOP conviction, Williams was sentenced to two years at Level V. 10 (6) On appeal from his VOP conviction and sentence, Williams argued that the conviction was invalid because it was prem ised on the 2010 modified sentence order, which Williams continued to claim w as illegal. According to Williams, but for the 2010 modified sentence order, he would have been released from custody on November 4, 2010, and therefore nev er charged with a VOP. By order dated July 16, 2012, we affirmed the VOP conv iction, ruling that the 2010 modified sentence order was not illegal, and that W illiams could not challenge the VOP conviction “merely on grounds that he should no t have been on probation in the first place.” 11

7 Id. See docket at 28 (Dec. 29, 2010) (referencing VOP hear ing, adjudication, and deferral of sentencing). 8 See docket at 24, State v. Williams , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1011002501 (June 23, 2011 ) (referencing jury trial and conviction). 9 Id. See docket at 27 (Jan. 13, 2012) (sentencing). 10 See docket at 42, State v. Williams , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 9901005150 (Jan. 13, 2012 ) (sentencing). 11 Williams v. State , 2012 WL 2914041, at *3 (Del. July 16, 2012).4

(7) In December 2012, on Williams’ direct appeal fr om his EAC conviction and sentence, we reversed the judgment o f conviction for the Superior Court’s failure to conduct a colloquy with Williams on his request to represent

himself at trial. 12 Thereafter, in 2013, Williams was retried and con victed of EAC, and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to eight years at Level V. On direct appeal, we affirmed the Superior Court judgment. 13 (8) It is against this backdrop that Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 15, 2014, claiming that he was being illegally detained. By order dated May 16, 2014, the Superior Court summar ily denied the petition after finding that Williams was being legally held on the two-year sentence imposed in 2012 for VOP and the eight-year sentence imposed in 2013 for EAC. (9) On appeal from the Superior Court’s order, Will iams attempts to argue that his detention is illegal because the 201 0 modified sentence order was illegal. His argument, however, is barred under th e “law of the case doctrine,” which provides that, in the absence of any evidence of clear error or important

12 Williams v. State , 56 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2012). 13 Williams v. State , 2014 WL 708445 (Del. Feb. 19, 2014).5

change of circumstances, the Court’s prior rejectio n of Williams’ illegal sentence argument is the “law of the case.” 14 (10) Williams has not demonstrated, and the record does not reflect, that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Williams is p resently detained under a valid sentence order that is plain on its face. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s moti on to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFF IRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice

14 See, e.g., Brittingham v. State , 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 1998) (“The prior decisio ns by this Court on any adjudicated issue involving Brittingha m’s claims become the law of the case in all subsequent stages of his continuing criminal procee dings.”). 15 See 10 Del. C. § 6902(1) (providing that a writ of hab eas corpus is not available to “[p]ersons committed or detained on a charge of treason or fel ony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment”). Hall v. Carr , 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997) (citing In re Pitt , 541 A.2d 554, 557 (Del. 1988)); Curran v. Woolley , 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954).