Title: Eley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 258, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RAPHUS ELEY,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 258, 2007 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 07M-04-032 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 17, 2007 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 15, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 15th day of November 2007, 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 appellant, Raphus Eley, has appealed the Superior Court’s 
May 2, 2007 summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the 
Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Eley’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In 1999, Eley was convicted of third degree burglary and 
related offenses.  For two burglary convictions, the Superior Court sentenced 
 
2
Eley to a total of six years at Level V suspended after successful completion 
of the Key Program and a Level IV program for Level III probation.  For the 
remaining offenses, the Superior Court sentenced Eley to Level V suspended 
for probation.  On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Eley’s conviction and 
sentence.1 
 
(3) 
In 2002 and 2005, Eley was adjudged guilty of violation of 
probation (VOP).  In 2002, the Superior Court sentenced Eley to six years at 
Level V suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision.  In 
2005, the Superior Court sentenced Eley to five years at Level V followed 
by six months at Level IV.  On appeal from the 2005 VOP, this Court 
affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.2 
 
(4) 
In February 2006, Eley filed a motion for correction of sentence 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  Eley argued double 
jeopardy due to multiplicity of charges in the indictment.  The Superior 
Court denied Eley’s motion for correction of sentence.  On appeal this Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.3 
 
(5) 
In April 2007, Eley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
Eley contended that he was being illegally detained due to sentencing errors.  
                                                 
1 Eley v. State, 2000 WL 1887919 (Del. Supr.). 
2 Eley v. State, 2006 WL 435592 (Del. Supr.).  Eley did not appeal the 2002 VOP; 
however, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s subsequent denial of Eley’s motion for 
modification of sentence.  Eley v. State, 2004 WL 557172 (Del. Supr.).   
3 Eley v. State, 2006 WL 2787399 (Del. Supr.). 
 
3
By order dated May 2, 2007, the Superior Court denied Eley’s habeas corpus 
petition.  This appeal followed. 
 
(6) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Eley alleges that the July 2005 
VOP sentence did not credit him with all of the time that he has served at 
Level V.  Eley argues that if he was properly credited, he would be entitled 
to immediate release. 
 
(7) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus affords relief on a 
limited basis.  Habeas corpus relief is available only to ensure that the 
prisoner is held pursuant to a legally valid commitment issued by a court of 
competent jurisdiction.4 
 
(8) 
In this case, Eley has not demonstrated that he is entitled to 
habeas corpus relief.  The Superior Court clearly had jurisdiction over Eley’s 
2005 adjudication of VOP.  The Superior Court’s subsequent commitment of 
Eley to serve a prison sentence is valid on its face.  
 
(9) 
Eley is correct that he is statutorily entitled to credit for “any 
period of actual incarceration.”5  Nonetheless Eley has provided no support 
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1) (1999); DeAngelo v. State, 2004 WL 3248441 (Del. 
Supr.) (citing Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 
771, 773 (Del. 1954)). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(c) (2001). 
 
4
for his conclusory claim that he is entitled to immediate release as a result of 
an improper accounting of his Level V credit.6     
 
(10) It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit.  The issues on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law 
and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there was no abuse of 
discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a).  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
6When the Superior Court reimposes a suspended portion of a sentence upon an 
adjudication of VOP, the defendant is inherently credited with any time the defendant has 
already served on the unsuspended portion of the sentence. Ross v. State, 2002 WL 
1315250 (Del. Supr.).