Opinion
No. 160, 2003
Submitted: May 9, 2003
Decided: June 19, 2003
Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03M-02-098
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
MONROE LAWS, Petitioner Below Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below Appellee. No. 160, 2003 Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: May 9, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
E. Norman Veasey, Chief Justice
This 19th day of June 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, Monroe Laws, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's March 17, 2003 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 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 on the face of Laws' opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM.
(2) In September 1989, a Superior Court jury found Laws guilty of three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with the minor daughter of his girlfriend. He was sentenced on each count to a term of life in prison. Laws' convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. He has twice unsuccessfully petitioned for postconviction relief.
(3) In this appeal, Laws claims that the Superior Court should have granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he was illegally detained and questioned for over two hours pending investigation of the crime, thus depriving the State of jurisdiction. Laws also claims that the Superior Court should have granted him an evidentiary hearing regarding his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. Habeas corpus only provides Aan opportunity for one illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment. AHabeas 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) In this case, Laws has alleged no facts upon which a petition for a writ of habeas corpus might be granted. Being held for questioning for over two hours would not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the charges against him. Moreover, Laws has not demonstrated any entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
(6) It is manifest on the face of Laws' 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.
SUPR.CT.R. 25(a).
Laws v. State, Del. Supr., No. 376, 1989, Horsey, J. (Apr. 17, 1990).
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
Id.
Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, 6902(1)).
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.