From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooten v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 18, 2002
793 A.2d 310 (Del. 2002)

Opinion

No. 3, 2002.

Decided: March 18, 2002.

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. 01M-12-016.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.


Affirmed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

GLENRON T. HOOTEN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 3, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 11, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002


ORDER

This 18th day of March 2002, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Glenron T. Hooten, has filed this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of Hooten's second 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 Hooten's opening brief that the appeal is without merit.

(2) In September 2000, Hooten pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana and Resisting Arrest and was sentenced to a total of three years at Level V, suspended for one year at Level III and one year at Level II. In April 2001, Hooten was convicted of violation of probation ("VOP") and was sentenced to two years at Level V, suspended for one year at Level IV Work Release and Crest Program. Upon successful completion of the Crest Program, the balance of the sentence was suspended for Level III TASC Aftercare.

State v. Hooten, ID No. 0008001813 (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 27, 2000).

(3) In August 2001, Hooten was again convicted of VOP. Hooten was sentenced to Level V for two years, suspended after completion of the Short Term Key Program, for one year at Level IV Work Release and Crest Program, suspended after completion for Level III probation.

(4) By order dated September 6, 2001, the Superior Court denied Hooten's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court found that Hooten had "voluntarily and prematurely discharged" himself from the Crest Program in May 2001 and was being lawfully held pursuant to the August 2001 sentencing order that directed Hooten to complete the Short Term Key Program.

Hooten v. State, C.A. No. 01M-09-002 (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 6, 2001).

Hooten contends that he was "medically discharged" from the Crest Program.

(5) By status report dated November 28, 2001, the Department of Corrections notified the Superior Court that Hooten had refused to enter into the Short Term Key Program. The Department of Corrections recommended that Hooten should remain at Level V for the duration of his sentence, in the event he continued to refuse to participate in the Program. That recommendation was approved by the Superior Court on December 3, 2001.

(6) Hooten filed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus on December 21, 2001. In that petition, and in his opening brief on appeal, Hooten alleges that he is physically unable, due to a medical disability, to participate in the Short Term Key Program. He requests that this Court direct the Superior Court to resentence him to time served at Level V, probation, and "an appropriate Level 3 treatment program."

(7) Hooten's arguments and his request for a modification of sentence are not proper subjects for habeas corpus. In reviewing a denial of habeas corpus relief, this Court has held that "the only material fact to be ascertained upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the existence of a judgment of conviction of a court of competent jurisdiction and a valid commitment of the prisoner to enforce the sentence." The record reflects that the Superior Court's sentencing order of August 17, 2001 is valid on its face. Hooten continues to be held pursuant to that valid commitment. Hooten is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

Skinner v. State, 135 A.2d 612, 613 (Del. 1957) (citing Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del. 1954)).

(8) It is manifest on the face of Hooten's opening brief that his appeal is without merit. The issues presented in this appeal are clearly controlled by settled Delaware law.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hooten v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 18, 2002
793 A.2d 310 (Del. 2002)
Case details for

Hooten v. State

Case Details

Full title:GLENRON T. HOOTEN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

Citations

793 A.2d 310 (Del. 2002)