Court Opinion

ID: 9372441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 17:02:45.770461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.500531
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  THOMAS A. ROBLES,                       §
                                          §   No. 366, 2022
        Petitioner Below,                 §
        Appellant,                        §   Court Below–Superior Court
                                          §   of the State of Delaware
        v.                                §
                                          §   C.A. No. N22M-09-011
  STATE OF DELAWARE,                      §
                                          §
        Respondent Below,                 §
        Appellee.                         §

                          Submitted: January 30, 2023
                          Decided:   February 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

                                      ORDER

      After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Thomas A. Robles, filed this appeal from the Superior

Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State has moved to

affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Robles’

opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

      (2)    In 2016, Robles pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count

of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, one count of home

invasion, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree assault.

The Superior Court sentenced Robles to an aggregate of twenty-four years of
incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of supervision. Robles did not appeal,

nor did he file a motion for postconviction relief.

          (3)    On September 2, 2022, Robles filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in the Superior Court, alleging “denial of due process.” The Superior Court

denied the petition, finding Robles to be legally detained. This appeal followed.

          (4)    In his opening brief, Robles argues that he was denied due process in

the proceedings below because trial counsel did not seek a psychiatric evaluation to

determine his competency to plead guilty. Robles is not entitled to habeas corpus

relief.

          (5)    Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very

limited basis.1 A writ of habeas corpus may not be issued to any person committed

or detained on a felony charge, which is plainly and fully set forth in the

commitment.2 Where the commitment is regular on its face and the court has

jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to the

petitioner.3

          (6)    The record reflects that Robles was charged with multiple felony

offenses, over which the Superior Court clearly had jurisdiction. Robles does not

1
    Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
2
    10 Del. C. § 6902(1).
3
 Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Wooley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.
1954).

                                                   2
dispute that his commitment is regular on its face. Moreover, Robles’ claim relating

to trial counsel’s performance is not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus.4 We therefore conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of Robles’ petition

for a writ of habeas corpus was proper.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to affirm

is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

                                              BY THE COURT:
                                              /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                              Justice

4
 Grantham v. State, 2012 WL 385613, at *1 (Del. Feb. 6, 2012). See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R.
61(a)(2) (providing that postconviction relief “may not be sought by a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus or in any manner other than” under Rule 61).

                                                 3