Title: Webb v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 185, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 14, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 185, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 07M-01-117  
§  Cr. ID 9702013762 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 4, 2007 
Decided:  August 14, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of August 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’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 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1  
Webb sought habeas corpus relief on the ground that his original 1997 
                                                 
1 Webb’s notice of appeal purports to appeal from the March 14, 2007 order 
denying his motion for correction of sentence.  The March 14 order, however, clearly was 
a denial of Webb’s habeas corpus petition.  Webb’s sentence correction motion was not 
even filed in the Superior Court until March 19, 2007.  The Superior Court denied that 
motion on May 9, 2007, and Webb filed a separate appeal from that order, which is 
pending before the Court.   
 
 
-2-
sentence, and subsequent VOP sentence, were illegal and were the product 
of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Webb’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.2  Pursuant to Section 6902 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code, 
habeas corpus relief is not available to a petitioner who is “committed or 
detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly and 
fully set forth in the commitment.”3  Webb pleaded guilty to second degree 
burglary and was sentenced in May 1997.  Thereafter, in June 2000, the 
Superior Court found him in violation of the terms of his probationary 
sentence and reimposed a period of incarceration.  Webb’s commitment is 
valid on its face, and he continues to be held pursuant to that valid 
commitment.  To the extent Webb contends that his original sentence is 
“illegal” because it did not comply with the terms of his plea agreement and 
was the result of the ineffective assistance of his legal counsel, such issues 
cannot be reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus.4 
                                                 
2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 88, 891 (Del. 1997). 
3 DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 10, § 6902 (1999). 
4 Lewis v. State, 215 A.2d 433, 434 (Del. 1965). 
 
 
-3-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice