Biggins v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES A. BIGGINS, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 506, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 08M-09-012 Submitted: January 16, 2009 Decided: April 7, 2009 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 7th day of April 2009, upon consideration of the parties briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, James Biggins, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to Biggins appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court s judgment. (2) The record reflects that Biggins was convicted and sentenced in 1997 to a thirty-year term of incarceration. He presently is housed at the Vaughn Correctional Center. In 2008, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that correctional authorities had improperly transferred him from the general prison population to a maximum security housing unit in the facility. Biggins argued that his confinement is illegal because it breached a 1982 consent order entered into by the Department of Correction (DOC), which required the DOC to adopt disciplinary procedures regarding classification movements. The Superior Court denied Biggins petition for a writ on the ground that Biggins is legally detained pursuant to a valid commitment of the Superior Court. (3) We agree. In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.1 Habeas relief is not available to a petitioner who is committed on a felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment. 2 Biggins commitment is proper on its face. As we held in denying a similar petition previously filed by Biggins, complaints relating to prison management and/or classification decisions are not the proper subject of a habeas corpus petition.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 1 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 88 (1997). 10 Del. C. §6902. 3 Biggins v. State, 2007 WL 2309992 (Del. Aug. 14, 2007). 2 2
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.
