Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 296, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 31, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD G. JOHNSON, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 296, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05M-06-067 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: August 10, 2005 
 
Decided: 
August 31, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 31st day of August 2005, 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, Ronald G. Johnson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 16, 2005 order denying his petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
 
2
manifest on the face of the appellant’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and affirm.  
 
(2) 
In April 2005, Johnson was arrested and charged with nine 
separate offenses in connection with a domestic violence incident.  After a 
preliminary hearing in the Court of Common Pleas, Johnson was bound over 
for trial in the Superior Court.  He was ordered held on $25,000 cash bail.  In 
May 2005, Johnson was indicted by the grand jury on all nine charges.  The 
record reflects that he currently is being held by the Department of 
Correction in default of bail.   
 
(3) 
On appeal, Johnson states that he has appealed this matter to 
this Court for a “finding of facts.”  He also requests that another matter, an 
appeal from Superior Court C.A. No. 05M-05-003 (Supreme Court No. 254, 
2005), be consolidated with the instant appeal because both appeals “seek 
the same relief.”   
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.2  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.”3  “Habeas corpus relief is not 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
3 Id. 
 
3
available to ‘[p]ersons committed or detained on a charge of treason or 
felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.’”4 
 
(5) 
In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the charges 
against Johnson are facially invalid or that there are any jurisdictional 
defects.  As such, the Superior Court properly denied Johnson’s petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  Moreover, Johnson’s request for consolidation is 
moot, since this Court already has dismissed his other appeal.5 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Johnson’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented 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 State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
 
 
                                                 
4 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
5 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 254, 2005, Holland, J. (July 11, 2005).