Jackson v. Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MAURICE V. JACKSON, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 533, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 05M-09-102 Submitted: February 10, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 24th day of April 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The petitioner-appellant, Maurice V. Jackson, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s September 30, 2005 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) In March 2004, Jackson pleaded guilty in the Family Court to Terroristic Threatening and Assault in the Third Degree. He was sentenced to a total of 2 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately for 1 year of Level II probation. While on probation, Jackson committed new offenses, resulting in his arrest. (3) In June 2004, Jackson pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas to new charges of Terroristic Threatening and Assault in the Third Degree. As a result of the new charges, the Family Court found that Jackson had committed a violation of probation ( VOP ) and sentenced him to 2 years at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months and successful completion of the Key Program for 1 year at Level III probation. The Court of Common Pleas sentenced Jackson on the new charges to a total of 1 year and 9 months at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months for decreasing levels of probation. (4) In September 2005, Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court claiming that he improperly exceeded his sentence on his Family Court VOP because it took him more than 6 months to complete the Key Program. In this appeal, he also claims that the Superior Court should have granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because his Family Court sentence was illegally enhanced without a court hearing. 2 (5) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.1 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. 2 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. 3 (6) Jackson has presented no evidence that either the Family Court or the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for the offenses he committed. Where the commitment was regular on its face and the court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to the petitioner. Moreover, habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for postconviction relief.4 We, therefore, find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Jackson s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). Id. 3 Id. (quoting Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6902(1)). 4 Weber v. Albright, Del. Supr., No. 152, 1994, Hartnett, J. (July 26, 1994) (citing Lewis v. State, 215 A.2d 433, 434 (Del. 1965)). 2 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 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.
