Ward v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN A. WARD, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 48, 2004 Court Below---Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 04M-01-015 Submitted: May 21, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 3rd day of August 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner-appellant, John A. Ward, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s January 16, 2004 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In 1978, Ward was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the Third Degree. He was sentenced on the robbery conviction to life in prison as an habitual offender1 and on the assault conviction to one year at Level V. (3) In this appeal, Ward claims that the Superior Court committed legal error when it denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that he should have been released from prison on November 29, 2000, his short term release date calculated by deducting his good time credits from a life sentence of 45 years.2 (4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.3 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. 4 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. 5 (5) We find no basis for concluding that the Superior Court committed legal error or abused its discretion in denying Ward s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court properly found that habeas corpus relief was not available to Ward in the absence of any evidence that the Superior Court lacked 1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b). Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894 (Del. 2003). 3 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 4 Id. 5 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 6902(1)). 2 -2- jurisdiction to charge him with and try him for robbery and assault. Moreover, the Superior Court correctly found that Ward s claim that his release date has been calculated erroneously is not properly addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice -3-
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.
