Campbell v. Williams et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DEAN M. CAMPBELL, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. RAPHAEL WILLIAMS et al., Respondents BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 408, 2003 Court Below---Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C. A. No. 03M-07-045 Submitted: January 16, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004 Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 17th day of February 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner-appellant, Dean M. Campbell, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s July 22, 2003 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In September 1993, Campbell pleaded guilty to Attempted Unlawful Delivery of a Non-Controlled Substance. He was sentenced to 8 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 2 years for decreasing levels of probation. In March 2002, Campbell was found to have committed a VOP in connection with his 1993 sentence. His probation was revoked and he was given a 5-year, 6-month Level V sentence, to be suspended after 6 months for decreasing levels of probation. (3) In March 2003, Campbell again was found to have committed a VOP in connection with his 1993 sentence. His probation was revoked and he was given a 4-year Level V sentence, to be suspended after 2 years for probation. Campbell did not file a direct appeal. In June 2003, Campbell filed a motion for sentence modification and, when that motion was denied, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On July 2, 2003, the Superior Court denied Campbell s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Campbell appeals from the denial of his habeas corpus petition. (4) On July 21, 2003, Campbell filed another motion for sentence modification and another petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court granted the sentence modification motion, permitting Campbell to move to Level IV probation after 9 months rather than 2 years, but denied Campbell s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (5) In this appeal, Campbell claims that: a) there was insufficient evidence presented at the March 2003 hearing to support a finding of a VOP; b) the Superior Court violated his due process rights in connection with the VOP -2- hearing;1 c) the Superior Court abused its discretion by basing its findings on inaccurate information; d) his counsel provided ineffective assistance; e) his VOP sentence does not reflect proper credit for time spent at Level V; and f) he should have been provided with a transcript of the VOP hearing. (6) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.2 Habeas corpus offers an opportunity for one who is illegally confined or incarcerated to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment.3 Habeas corpus relief is not available to persons committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment. 4 (7) In this case, the record reflects that Campbell is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior Court, which had jurisdiction to find a VOP and impose a VOP sentence.5 Because the record reflects that Campbell is being held pursuant to a valid commitment, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.6 Moreover, Campbell chose not to file a direct appeal from the Superior Court s finding of a 1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32.1(a). 2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 3 Id. 4 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 4302(6) and 4334(c) (2001). 6 Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996). -3- VOP or the VOP sentence. The extraordinary writ process may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal.7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice 7 In re Barbee, 693 A.2d 317, 319 (Del. 1997). -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
