Title: Waters v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 4, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ARTHUR L. WATERS,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 4, 2003
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  C.A. No. 02M-12-006
§
§
Submitted: January 23, 2003
  Decided:   March 6, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 6th day of March 2003, 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 petitioner-appellant, Arthur L. Waters, filed an appeal from
the Superior Court’s December 10, 2002 order denying his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a).
2The Superior Court noted that Waters had been sentenced originally to 6 years
incarceration at Level V.
-2-
manifest on the face of Waters’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1
We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
On February 22, 2002, Waters was found to be in violation of
probation (“VOP”) for the fifth time on a 1998 kidnaping charge.  The
sentencing order issued on that date revoked Waters’ probation and reimposed
a sentence of 34 months incarceration at Level V, with credit for 2 years, 10
months and 11 days previously served.  The order further provided that, while
at Level V, Waters was to enter and complete the Short Term Key Program and,
upon successful completion of the Program, serve the remainder of his sentence
at Level III.  The Department of Corrections was directed to notify the Superior
Court if Waters failed to complete the Program.  
(3)
At some point after February 22, 2002, and prior to April 17, 2002,
the Superior Court became aware of an error in its VOP sentencing order.  On
April 17, 2002, the Superior Court issued a modified order, which sentenced
Waters to 6 years of incarceration at Level V,2 with credit for 2 years, 10
months and 11 days previously served.  The order further provided that, while
at Level V, Waters was to enter and complete the Short Term Key Program.  If
3SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 43.
4Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
5Id.
-3-
he successfully completed the Program, Waters would serve the remainder of
his sentence at Level III, but if he failed to complete the Program, he would
serve the remainder of his sentence at Level V.  Waters did not file a direct
appeal from the Superior Court’s modified sentencing order.  On May 1, 2002,
Waters filed a motion for reduction of sentence, which the Superior Court
denied.  Waters did not appeal the Superior Court’s denial of the motion.      
(4)
In this appeal, Waters claims that his February 22, 2002 sentence
was a nullity because the credit he was given for time previously served
essentially canceled out the prison term that was imposed.  Waters further
claims that the Superior Court had no authority to modify his sentencing order
on April 17, 2002 without his being present.3  Waters claims that these defects
render his confinement illegal and entitle him to immediate release.  
(5)
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very
limited basis.4  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.”5  “Habeas corpus relief is not available to ‘[p]ersons
6Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 6902(1)).
7Waters also failed to appeal the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for reduction
of sentence.  To the extent Waters argues that the Superior Court’s modified sentence
constituted a substantive legal change rather than a mere correction to reflect the actual
sentence imposed in Waters’ presence in open court, he has provided no record support for
that argument.  Jones v. State, 672 A.2d 554, 556 (Del. 1996).
8Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954).
-4-
committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is
plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.’”6
(6)
Waters does not claim that his 1998 kidnaping charge was
defective or that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.  Moreover, Waters
failed to file a direct appeal of the Superior Court’s modified sentencing order7
and his habeas corpus petition may not be used as a substitute for a direct
appeal.8  The Superior Court, thus, correctly determined that there was no basis
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in this case.
(7)
It is manifest on the face of Waters’ opening brief that his appeal
from the Superior Court’s December 10, 2002 order denying his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is without merit because the issues presented on appeal
are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion
is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
-5-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s
motion to affirm is GRANTED.   The judgment of the Superior Court is
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
      Justice