IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

v. ) I.D. No. 1401017199

)

NATHANIEL BARKSDALE

, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This 8 th day of July, 2014 , upon consideration of P etitioner/ Defendant

Nathaniel Barksdale ’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

, 1 the

Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and the record in this case

,

the Court finds the following :

1) T he Petitioner/De fendant, Nathaniel Barksdale, is under

indictment and being held in lieu of bail for: one count of Arson in the

Second Degree, one count of Arson in the Third Degree, and two counts of

Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree. 2

1 Barksdale, although he is represented by counsel, has filed this pro se habeas

petition seeking release from or dismissal of his pending criminal charges.

2 D EL

. C ODE A NN

. tit. 11, § 802 (2014); D EL

. C ODE A NN

. tit. 11, § 801 (2014); and

D EL

. C ODE A NN

. tit. 11, § 822 (2014).2) T his Petition was before Superior Court Commissioner Mark S.

Vavala pursuant to 10 Del. C . § 512(b) and Superior Court Civil R ule 13 2

for proposed findings of facts and recommendations for a disposition

.

3) The Commissioner has filed the attached Report and

Recommendation suggesting that the Court deny Barksdale ’s Petition for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus. No objections to the Report have been filed.

4) Barksdale appears to contend that this Court should grant his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus now because, in his view, the State’s

evidence is insufficient to convict him

. 3 This contention is without merit. In

Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. 4

Pursuant to § 6902(1) of Title 10, a writ of habeas corpus may not be issued

to any person “committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the

sp ecies whereof is plainly and full y set forth in the commitment.”

Consequently, no prisoner whose commitment is regular on its face can

obtain release through a state habeas corpus petition

. 5 The record in this

case reflects that Barksdale is charged with numerous felony and

misdemeanor offenses over which the Superior Court clearly has

3 Pet. at ¶¶ 4

– 5.

4 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997)

.

5 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962).jurisdiction. 6 S ecured bail was set at the time of Barksdale’s original

commitment and he has had the opportunity to have that bail reviewed at

least twice. (D.I. 1, 2, a nd 6). Accordingly, Barksdale, whose commitment

is regular on its face, is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. 7

NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in

this action, and for reasons stated here and in the Commissioner’s Repor t

a nd Rec ommendations of June 13, 2014

,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Report, including its

recommendation, is adopted by the Court. Barksdale ’ s Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

/s/ Paul R. Wallace

PA UL R. WALLACE , JUDGE

Original to Prothonotary:

cc: Commissioner Mark S. Vavala

Barzilai Axelrod

, Esquire, DAG

Sean Motoyoshi, Esquire

Nathaniel Barksdale

Investigative Service s

6 See D EL

. C ODE A NN

. tit. 11, § 2701(c) (2014).

7 See D EL

. C ODE A NN

. tit. 10, § 6902(1) (2014); Johnson v. Williams , 2006 WL

1519 419 (Del. May 31, 2006)(no basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus when

defendant being held by the Department of Correction in default of bail while awaiting

trial and has not demonstrated that this Court lacked jurisdiction to indict him); Joh nson

v. State, 2005 WL 2123789 (Del. Aug. 31, 2005) (same); Norwood v. State, 2001 WL

1329692 (Del. Oct. 23, 2001) (same)

.