Title: Fisher v. Carroll
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 15, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
L. ROYAL FISHER, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
THOMAS CARROLL, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 15, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02M-12-009 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 28, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   March 31, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 31st day of March, 2003, 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, L. Royal Fisher, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s December 9, 2002 and January 6, 2003 orders denying  
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying his motion for 
reargument.  The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has moved 
to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest 
 
2
on the face of Fisher’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In February 1993, Fisher was transferred from New Jersey to 
Delaware pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact2 and placed on 
work release.  He was later indicted by the grand jury for crimes committed 
while on work release.  On September 15, 1993, Fisher pleaded guilty to 
Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced to a total of 10 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months probation.  On 
September 30, 1993, Fisher was returned to the custody of New Jersey for a 
determination of whether Fisher had violated probation in that jurisdiction.  
Once the New Jersey sentence was completed, Fisher was transferred back 
to Delaware to serve the sentence imposed on September 15, 1993. 
 
(3) 
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court, 
Fisher claimed, first, that his return to New Jersey in 1993 violated the terms 
of his Delaware sentence and, second, that he is entitled to credit towards his 
Delaware sentence for the time he spent incarcerated in New Jersey.   
                                                          
 
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6571 (2001).  The Superior Court’s December 9, 2002 order 
incorrectly terms it the “Interstate Agreement on Detainers.” 
 
3
 
(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 felony, the 
species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.’”5   
 
(5) 
The Superior Court correctly determined that there was no basis 
for a writ of habeas corpus in this case.  There is no evidence that Fisher was 
incarcerated illegally in either Delaware or New Jersey.  When an individual 
has committed crimes in two states, the issue of which has jurisdiction over 
him at any particular point in time is a matter of comity between the two 
states.6  The Interstate Corrections Compact, whose purpose is “to provide 
for the mutual development and execution of . . .  programs of cooperation 
for the confinement, treatment and rehabilitation of offenders” between and 
among the “party states”,7 reflects that principle.  There is no provision in 
the Interstate Corrections Compact that would have prevented New Jersey 
                                                          
 
3Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4Id. 
5Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 
6Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260-61 (1922). 
7DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6571 (2001). 
 
4
and Delaware from agreeing that Fisher would be returned to New Jersey for 
proceedings in that state prior to serving the Delaware sentence.  Moreover, 
the record reflects that the sentencing judge was informed by the prosecutor 
at the sentencing hearing that New Jersey was seeking Fisher’s return in 
order to determine whether Fisher had violated his probation in connection 
with a previous conviction. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Fisher’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, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice