Title: Dorsey v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 318, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 18, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALFRED DORSEY, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   No. 318, 2004 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§   in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr.A. Nos. 03-01-0198 through 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§        0203 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  August 3, 2004 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  November 18, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th day of November 2004, 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 appellant, Alfred Dorsey, filed an appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order dated June 6, 2004, that denied his petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Dorsey’s Opening Brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 
 
2
 
2) 
On June 6, 2003, Alfred Dorsey entered a “no contest” plea in 
the Superior Court to Racketeering and Conspiracy in the Second Degree in 
Cr. A. Nos. IS03-01-0198 & 0200.  He was sentenced immediately to a total 
of eight years of incarceration at Level V, with credit for 143 days 
previously served, suspended after serving two years at Level V and upon 
successful completion of Level V Key Short Term Program for twelve 
months at Level IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program, upon 
successful completion of the Level IV program.  The balance of the sentence 
was suspended for eighteen months Level III Aftercare, followed by two 
years at Level III probation.  No appeal was taken from this sentence. 
 
3) 
On June 4, 2004, Dorsey filed a “Memorandum of Law in 
support of his Habeas Corpus application to the Superior Court.  On June 10, 
2004, the Superior Court dismissed the application for a writ of habeas 
corpus.   
 
4) 
On appeal, Dorsey argues that he was coerced into pleading 
guilty because his attorney was ineffective and informed him that the 
wiretap interception was constitutionally valid.  According to Dorsey, the 
State failed to notify him in a timely manner of the wiretap interception and, 
therefore, the evidence should have been suppressed. 
 
3
 
5) 
It is manifest on the face of the Opening Brief that Dorsey is 
not entitled to habeas corpus relief.  We have concluded that the Superior 
Court was correct in summarily dismissing Dorsey’s application for a writ of 
habeas corpus. 
 
6) 
It is well established that a writ of habeas corpus is not a 
substitute for direct appeal or post-conviction relief.1  This Court has held 
that, on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the only issues to be decided 
are the existence of a judgment of conviction by a court of competent 
jurisdiction and a valid commitment of the prisoner to enforce the sentence.2  
 
7) 
The record reflects that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to 
accept Dorsey’s no contest pleas to the felony charges of which he was 
convicted. The Superior Court’s subsequent commitment of Dorsey to the 
custody of the Department of Correction to serve a prison sentence for the 
convictions is valid on its face.3  Accordingly, Dorsey is not challenging 
either the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to convict him or the validity of 
his commitment to State custody.   
                                          
 
1 See Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954). 
2 Petition of Pitt, 541 A.2d 554, 557 (Del. 1988); Skinner v. State, 135 A.2d 612, 613 
(Del. 1957) (citing Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d at 773). 
3 See Sanders v. State, 1997 WL 702572 (Del., Nov. 5, 1007). 
 
4
8) 
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief 
on a very limited basis.4  Dorsey’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 
and challenges to the voluntariness of a guilty plea are not a basis for habeas 
corpus relief.5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Superior Court are affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                          
 
4 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902 (1974); Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
5 Cf. Golla v. State, 135 A.2d 137 (Del. 1957) (ruling that habeas corpus cannot be used 
to review error in conduct of trial).