Title: Cammile v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 89, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 19, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN I. CAMMILE,   
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 89, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. Nos. 09M-12-098 
§                   10M-01-099 
§  Cr. ID No. 9506011640  
§                                            
  
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 19, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 19, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of May 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, Brian I. Cammile, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s December 29, 2009 and January 28, 2010 orders dismissing his 
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.  The respondent-appellee, the State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgments on the ground that 
 
2 
it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In 1995, the grand jury indicted Cammile on charges of robbery, 
burglary, assault, and related offenses.  In September 1996, Cammile pleaded 
guilty to one count of Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to 4 years of incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 4 years at 
Level IV Home Confinement, in turn to be suspended after 6 months for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Cammile did not appeal his conviction or 
sentence.   
 
(3) 
In 2005, the grand jury again indicted Cammile, this time on charges 
of burglary, conspiracy, unlawful use of a credit card, and theft.  In February 2006, 
Cammile pleaded guilty to two counts of Burglary in the Second Degree, two 
counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, one count of Theft, and one count of 
Unlawful Use of a Credit Card.  Cammile admitted that he was eligible for 
sentencing as a habitual offender under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(a).  He was 
sentenced to 24 years of incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 16 years 
for decreasing levels of supervision. 
 
(4) 
In March 2009, Cammile filed a motion for postconviction relief in 
the Superior Court on grounds relating to his 1996 guilty plea.  The Superior 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3 
Court’s denial of the motion was affirmed by this Court.2  Cammile then filed two 
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court, also on grounds relating 
to his 1996 guilty plea.  Cammile has now appealed the Superior Court’s dismissal 
of his two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.  
 
(5) 
In his appeal, Cammile claims that a) the Superior Court should have 
held an evidentiary hearing to consider the claims made in his petitions; b) because 
his 1996 guilty plea was defective, it could not properly be counted as a predicate 
felony in support of his habitual offender status; and c) his attorney provided 
ineffective assistance in connection with his 2006 guilty plea.   
 
(6) 
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 
 
(7) 
Because Cammile was sentenced both in 1996 and 2006 by a court of 
competent jurisdiction and there is no evidence of any irregularity in the 
commitments, there is no basis for habeas corpus relief.  As such, the Superior 
                                                 
2 Cammile v. State, Del. Supr., No. 457, 2009, Berger, J. (Oct. 20, 2009).  
3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 
4 Id. 
5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §6902(1)). 
 
4 
Court neither abused its discretion nor committed legal error when it denied 
Cammile’s request for an evidentiary hearing and when it denied his petitions for a 
writ of habeas corpus. 
 
(8) 
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 is 
GRANTED.  The judgments of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice