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 8th day of July, 2014, upon consideration of Petitioner/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) The Petitioner/Defendant, 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 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 802 (2014); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 801 (2014); and 

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 822 (2014).
2) This Petition was before Superior Court Commissioner Mark S. 

Vavala pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Civil Rule 132 

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 

species whereof is plainly and fully 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

 Secured 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, and 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 Report

and Recommendations 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

PAUL R. WALLACE, JUDGE

Original to Prothonotary:

cc: Commissioner Mark S. Vavala

Barzilai Axelrod, Esquire, DAG

Sean Motoyoshi, Esquire

Nathaniel Barksdale

Investigative Services

 6

 See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 2701(c) (2014).

7 See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 6902(1) (2014); Johnson v. Williams, 2006 WL 

1519419 (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); Johnson 

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

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