Title: Biggins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 506, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 7, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES A. BIGGINS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 506, 2008  
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. 08M-09-012  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of April 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, James Biggins, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  We find no merit to 
Biggins’ appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Biggins was convicted and sentenced in 1997 
to a thirty-year term of incarceration.  He presently is housed at the Vaughn 
Correctional Center.  In 2008, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 
asserting that correctional authorities had improperly transferred him from the 
general prison population to a maximum security housing unit in the facility.  
 
2 
Biggins argued that his confinement is illegal because it breached a 1982 consent 
order entered into by the Department of Correction (DOC), which required the 
DOC to adopt disciplinary procedures regarding classification movements.  The 
Superior Court denied Biggins’ petition for a writ on the ground that Biggins is 
legally detained pursuant to a valid commitment of the Superior Court.  
(3) 
We agree.  In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a 
very limited basis.1  Habeas relief is not available to a petitioner who is committed 
on a felony, “the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.”2 Biggins’ commitment is proper on its face.  As we held in denying 
a similar petition previously filed by Biggins, complaints relating to prison 
management and/or classification decisions are not the proper subject of a habeas 
corpus petition.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 88 (1997). 
2 10 Del. C. §6902. 
3 Biggins v. State, 2007 WL 2309992 (Del. Aug. 14, 2007).