Title: Buchanan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 280, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID J. BUCHANAN,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 280, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. S10M-04-007  
§  Cr. ID No. 0801031784 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 26, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  August 2, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of August 2010, 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, David J. Buchanan, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s April 13, 2010 order denying his petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
 
2
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in September 2008, Buchanan was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Third Degree, 
Resisting Arrest, Criminal Contempt, 3 counts of Possession of a Firearm by 
a Person Prohibited, and 2 counts of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon.  
On direct appeal, this Court reversed Buchanan’s burglary conviction, but 
affirmed his remaining convictions.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus, Buchanan claims that, as to his convictions of 
possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, the indictment does not 
adequately allege the grounds upon which he was a “prohibited person” 
pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §1448. 
 
(4) 
In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very 
limited basis.3  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.”4  “Habeas corpus relief is not 
available to ‘[p]ersons committed or detained on a charge of treason or 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Buchanan v. State, 981 A.2d 1098, 1099-1100 (Del. 2009). 
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4 Id.  
 
3
felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the 
commitment.’”5 
 
(5) 
In this case, Buchanan has not demonstrated that he is entitled 
to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.  He was convicted and sentenced 
in the Superior Court, a court of competent jurisdiction, and there is no 
evidence that his commitment was facially defective.  As such, the Superior 
Court properly denied Buchanan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 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 pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a) is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §6902(1)).