BROWNE v. STATE, 746 A.2d 275 (Del. 1999)

No. 309, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: November 16, 1999.
Decided: December 10, 1999.

Appeal from Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 99M-06-045.

AFFIRMED.

Before WALSH, HOLLAND and HARTNETT, Justices

MAURICE A. HARTNETT, III, Justice.

ORDER
This 10th day of December 1999, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner-appellant, Cecil Browne (“Browne”), filed this appeal from a June 23, 1999 order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State of Delaware, as the real party in interest, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Browne’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.[1] We agree and affirm.
(2) In October 1998, Browne was indicted on various unlawful sexual intercourse charges, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony and aggravated menacing. He was held in default of bail on those charges pending trial. The trial was originally scheduled to take place on June 10, 1999. Due to the reassignment of attorneys in the Office of the Public Defender, however, the trial date was continued until July 27, 1999. During that time, Browne continued to be held in default of bail.
(3) In this appeal, Browne claims that: first, his right to a speedy trial was violated; second, he was imprisoned illegally; and, third, his counsel provided ineffective assistance.
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.[2] 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.”[3] “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.'”[4]
(5) In this case, Browne was charged with several felonies and was held in default of bail on those charges. The charges were valid on their face and there were no jurisdictional defects. As such, habeas corpus relief is not available to Browne on any of his claims and the Superior Court was correct in so deciding.
(6) It is manifest on the face of Browne’s opening brief that the appeal from the Superior Court’s June 23, 1999 order is without merit because the issues presented on appeal clearly are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm isGRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.