Title: Webb v. Wesley
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 155, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 24, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB JR., 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STEVEN WESLEY, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 155, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N16M-02-191 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 20, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 24, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of August 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William Joseph Webb, Jr., filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Webb’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On February 18, 2016, Webb resolved two cases in the Court of 
Common Pleas by pleading guilty to Harassment and Noncompliance with Bond 
2 
 
Conditions.  Webb was immediately sentenced to thirty days of Level V 
incarceration for Harassment and one year of Level V incarceration, with credit for 
thirty days, suspended for Level II probation for Noncompliance with Bond 
Conditions.   
(3) 
On March 1, 2016, Webb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 
the Superior Court.  In an order dated March 2, 2016, the Superior Court denied 
the petition.  The Superior Court held that Webb was legally detained as a result of 
his thirty day Level V sentence for Harassment.  This appeal followed.  In his 
opening brief, Webb argues that: (i) the Superior Court judge should have recused 
himself because he recused himself from sentencing Webb in a different case in 
2000 after Webb threatened him; and (ii) the respondent’s failure to answer the 
petition violates the spirit and purpose of the Superior Court’s habeas corpus 
jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 6901.   
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.1  Habeas corpus only “provides an opportunity for one illegally 
confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court 
ordering the commitment.”2  Where the commitment is regular on its face and the 
                                                 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 Id. 
3 
 
court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford 
a remedy to the petitioner.3   
(5) 
Webb has offered no evidence that the Court of Common Pleas lacked 
jurisdiction to sentence him or that the commitment was irregular on its face.  As 
to his claim regarding the Superior Court judge, there is no indication that the 
Superior Court judge recognized Webb’s name from more than fifteen years earlier 
or was required to recuse himself.  By threatening a judge, a defendant cannot 
create grounds requiring the judge to recuse herself.  When a litigant engages in 
improper conduct in a proceeding, he cannot then claim that the judge who 
observed, or in this case, was targeted by that conduct is then disqualified from 
presiding over cases involving him.4   
(6) 
As to Webb’s claim regarding § 6901, nothing in that provision 
requires a response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The Superior Court 
did not err in denying Webb’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  As the State 
                                                 
3 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 
1954). 
4 See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 2005 WL 535007, at *1 (Del. Feb. 14, 2005) (holding Superior 
Court judge was not required to disqualify himself from presiding over sentence review hearing 
of defendant who had previously been charged with threatening him in a different case); State v. 
Fink, 2002 WL 1335302, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. June 14, 2002) (“[I]t is also generally held that 
comments which a defendant makes critical of a judge, threats or insults directed to a judge, or 
even threats of violence against a judge do not require disqualification.”); Richard E. Flamm, 
Judicial Disqualification:  Recusal and Disqualification of Judges, § 21.7 at 634-35 (2d ed. 2007) 
(recognizing litigant should not be permitted to create grounds for disqualification of judge by 
making threats against judge).   
4 
 
also points out, it appears that the petition is likely moot as Webb would have 
completed his thirty day Level V sentence for Harrassment and does not claim to 
remain incarcerated on that conviction. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice