Title: West v. May
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 284, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 20, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER HARRY WEST, 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT MAY, WARDEN, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 284, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N23M-07-045 
§  Cr. ID No. 1107001026 (N) 
§   
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 20, 2024 
  
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Christopher Harry West, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The State of 
Delaware, as the real party in interest, has moved to affirm the judgment below on 
the ground that it is manifest on the face of West’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
In 2012, West pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree robbery and 
one count of second-degree robbery.  Following a presentence investigation, the 
Superior Court sentenced West for first-degree robbery as a habitual offender under 
2 
 
then-extant 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) to twenty-five years.  For second-degree robbery, 
the Superior Court imposed a suspended sentence.  West did not appeal his 
convictions or sentence. 
(3) 
In 2013, West filed a motion for postconviction relief under Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61, claiming that trial counsel had provided ineffective 
assistance, he involuntarily pleaded guilty, and his confession had been coerced.  
After expanding the record with briefing and an affidavit from trial counsel 
addressing West’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Superior Court 
denied the motion.  We affirmed its denial on appeal.1 
(4) 
In 2015 and 2016, West filed his second and third motions for 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  West appealed the denial of 
his third motion for postconviction relief, and we affirmed.2  In so doing, we stated 
that, “[g]oing forward, the Court will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources 
to address procedurally barred claims,” and directed West to be mindful of Rule 
61(j).3 
(5) 
In 2020, West filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The Superior 
Court denied the petition, finding West to be legally detained.  West did not appeal.  
 
1 West v. State, 2014 WL 4264922 (Del. Aug. 28, 2014). 
2 West v. State, 2016 WL 4547912 (Del. Aug. 31, 2016). 
3 Id. at *2; Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a [postconviction] motion is denied, the state may 
move for an order requiring the movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the 
movant from public funds.”). 
3 
 
In July 2023, West filed another petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The Superior 
Court denied the petition, again finding West to be lawfully detained.  This appeal 
followed. 
(6) 
In his opening brief on appeal, West’s arguments may be fairly 
summarized as follows: (i) the process by which Rule 61 was amended in 2014 was 
flawed; (ii) counsel appointed to represent him in his initial postconviction 
proceedings was ineffective; (iii) trial counsel was ineffective; and (iv) habeas relief 
should be available to him because his claims are procedurally barred under the 
current version of Rule 61.  West is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. 
(7) 
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.4  A writ of habeas corpus may not be issued to any person committed 
or detained on a felony charge that is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.5  
Where the commitment is regular on its face and the court has jurisdiction over the 
subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to the petitioner.6   
(8) 
Although West claims that jurisdiction “never attached to him,”7 he is 
mistaken.  The Superior Court clearly has jurisdiction over the disposition of felony 
charges.  And West does not dispute that his commitment is regular on its face.  
 
4 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
5 10 Del. C. § 6902(1). 
6 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Wooley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 
1954). 
7 Opening Br. at 12. 
4 
 
Finally, West’s claims relating to counsel’s performance are not cognizable in a 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.8  We therefore conclude that the Superior 
Court’s denial of West’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper.  We warn 
West for a final time that the Court will not continue to invest scarce judicial 
resources to address his procedurally barred claims. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to affirm 
is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
 
 
8 Grantham v. State, 2012 WL 385613, at *1 (Del. Feb. 6, 2012). See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 
61(a)(2) (providing that postconviction relief “may not be sought by a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus or in any manner other than” under Rule 61).