Title: Giles v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 453, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 15, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WARDELL GILES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 453, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. 06M-07-014 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 9, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of March 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Wardell Giles, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s July 21, 2006, order denying his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In December 2001, Giles pleaded guilty to Robbery in the 
Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  On the robbery 
conviction, he was sentenced to five years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after successful completion of the Key Program for decreasing 
 
2
levels of probation.  On the conspiracy conviction, he was sentenced to two 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended for Level III probation.   
 
(3) 
In April 2004, the Superior Court found that Giles had 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) and sentenced him on the 
robbery conviction to 1½ years at Level V, to be suspended for decreasing 
levels of probation and on the conspiracy conviction to two years at Level V, 
to be suspended for one year at Level III.   
 
(4) 
In September 2004, the Superior Court again found that Giles 
had committed a VOP and sentenced him on the robbery conviction to six 
months at Level V, with the balance of the sentence suspended and 
discharged as unimproved, and on the conspiracy conviction to two years at 
Level V, to be suspended after successful completion of Boot Camp for one 
year at Level III.   
 
(5) 
Giles subsequently was discharged from Boot Camp for 
disciplinary reasons.  In April 2005, the Superior Court re-imposed his two-
year sentence for conspiracy, suspending it after successful completion of 
the Greentree Program for six months of Level III Aftercare.   
 
(6) 
Giles was found to have committed a third VOP in July 2006.  
He was sentenced on the conspiracy conviction to four months at Level V, to 
be suspended for four months at the VOP Center, to be followed by 
 
3
discharge.  The Superior Court modified that sentence sua sponte a few days 
later to provide Giles with credit for time served.  Giles filed a petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court challenging his sentence.  In an 
order dated July 21, 2006, the Superior Court denied the petition on the 
ground that its sua sponte modification of Giles’ sentence rendered his 
petition moot.   
 
(7) 
In this appeal, Giles claims that he was not on probation at the 
time he was found to have committed his third VOP because he had already 
served his entire two-year Level V sentence for conspiracy, thereby 
rendering his July 2006 VOP sentence invalid on its face.     
 
(8) 
 In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a 
very limited basis.1  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.”2  “Habeas corpus relief is not 
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.’”3 
                                          
 
1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
2 Id. 
3 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
 
4
 
(9) 
The record reflects that Giles was serving a six-month period of 
Level III Aftercare at the time he committed his third VOP.  In April 2005, 
the Superior Court had re-imposed his two-year Level V sentence for 
conspiracy and added a six-month period of probation, which was mandated 
under Delaware law.4  Thus, because Giles has failed to demonstrate that his 
commitment was irregular on its face or that the Superior Court lacked 
jurisdiction to sentence him, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                          
 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204(l). 
5 It also appears that Giles may already have been released from the VOP Center, which 
would render his petition moot.  Taylor v. State, Del. Supr., No. 378, 2002, Holland, J. 
Nov. 4, 2002).