No. 15, 2003.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: February 28, 2003.
Decided: March 31, 2003.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 02M-12-009
Appeal dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
L. ROYAL FISHER, Petitioner Below-Appellant, v. THOMAS CARROLL, Respondent Below-Appellee. No. 15, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: February 28, 2003. Decided: March 31, 2003.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
Randy J. Holland, Justice
ORDER
This 31st day of March, 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, L. Royal Fisher, filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s December 9, 2002 and January 6, 2003 orders denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying his motion for reargument. 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 Fisher’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.[1] We agree and AFFIRM.
(2) In February 1993, Fisher was transferred from New Jersey to Delaware pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact[2] and placed on work release. He was later indicted by the grand jury for crimes committed while on work release. On September 15, 1993, Fisher pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months probation. On September 30, 1993, Fisher was returned to the custody of New Jersey for a determination of whether Fisher had violated probation in that jurisdiction.
Once the New Jersey sentence was completed, Fisher was transferred back to Delaware to serve the sentence imposed on September 15, 1993.
(3) In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court, Fisher claimed, first, that his return to New Jersey in 1993 violated the terms of his Delaware sentence and, second, that he is entitled to credit towards his Delaware sentence for the time he spent incarcerated in New Jersey.
(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) The Superior Court correctly determined that there was no basis for a writ of habeas corpus in this case. There is no evidence that Fisher was incarcerated illegally in either Delaware or New Jersey. When an individual has committed crimes in two states, the issue of which has jurisdiction over him at any particular point in time is a matter of comity between the two states.[6] The Interstate Corrections Compact, whose purpose is “to provide for the mutual development and execution of . . . programs of cooperation for the confinement, treatment and rehabilitation of offenders” between and among the “party states”,[7]
reflects that principle. There is no provision in the Interstate Corrections Compact that would have prevented New Jersey and Delaware from agreeing that Fisher would be returned to New Jersey for proceedings in that state prior to serving the Delaware sentence. Moreover, the record reflects that the sentencing judge was informed by the prosecutor at the sentencing hearing that New Jersey was seeking Fisher’s return in order to determine whether Fisher had violated his probation in connection with a previous conviction.
(6) It is manifest on the face of Fisher’s opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal 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, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.