Opinion
No. 219, 2001
Decided: October 19, 2001
Superior Court New Castle County, C.A. No. 01M-04-071
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
FLOYD WRIGHT, Petitioner Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below-Appellee No. 219, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: October 19, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
This 19th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, Floyd Wright, filed an appeal from the May 1, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In May 1999, Wright entered a Robinson plea to charges of Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree. In August 1999, Wright was sentenced to 18 years in prison at Level V, to be suspended after 15 years for 3 years of work release and probation. Since that time, Wright has filed a motion for sentence modification, two motions for postconviction relief and two petitions for writs of habeas corpus, all of which have been denied by the Superior Court. Wright appealed the denial of his first motion for postconviction relief to this Court, which affirmed the decision of the Superior Court.
Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 291 A.2d 279 (1972) (permitting the acceptance by the Superior Court of a guilty plea in the absence of an admission of guilt).
Wright v. State, Del. Supr., No. 482, 2000, Holland, J., 2001 WL 433456 (Feb. 28, 2001) (ORDER) (deciding that Wright's claims of ineffectiveness of counsel, improper denial of motion to obtain other counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit).
(3) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. 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." "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.'"
Hall v. Carr, Del. Supr., 692 A.2d 888, 891 (1997).
Id.
Id. (quoting 10 Del. C. 6902(1)).
(4) In this appeal, Wright claims he should be released from prison because the Superior Court improperly interfered with the plea negotiation process, imposed a sentence that exceeded the SENTAC guidelines, subjected him to racial profiling, failed to ask whether he was taking medication before accepting his plea and improperly stated he could not withdraw his plea once it was entered.
(5) The record reflects that this last claim was the only one presented to the Superior Court in the first instance. It is, therefore, the only one properly before this Court in this appeal. The claim does not, however, provide an appropriate basis for the granting of a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the Superior Court properly dismissed Wright's petition.
Supr. Ct. R. 8.
Wright asserted this issue in a subsequent postconviction motion filed in the Superior Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.