SEAWRIGHT v. STATE, 834 A.2d 826 (Del. 2003)

DARREN L. SEAWRIGHT, Petitioner Below-Appellant v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below-Appellee.

No. 414, 2003Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: September 5, 2003
Decided: October 14, 2003

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 03M-08-008

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices.

Randy J. Holland, Justice.

ORDER
This 14th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Darren Seawright, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Seawright sought habeas corpus relief on the ground that the Department of Correction was illegally detaining him at the VOP Center rather than placing him at a halfway house, in accordance with the Superior Court’s sentencing order dated October 28, 1999. The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Seawright’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective positions carefully. We find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated August 13, 2003.
(3) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis.[1] Pursuant to Section 10 Del. C. § 6902 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code, habeas corpus relief is not available to a petitioner who is “committed or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully set forth in the commitment.”2 The Superior Court convicted Seawright of several felony and misdemeanor charges and sentenced him on October 28, 1999 to a term of incarceration followed by decreasing levels of supervision. This Court affirmed Seawright’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.3 Seawright’s commitment was valid on its face, and he continues to be held pursuant to that valid commitment. Seawright’s transfer to the VOP Center pending space availability at a halfway house does not render his commitment invalid. Accordingly, we find no merit to

Seawright’s contentions on appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

[1] Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 88, 891 (Del. 1997). 2 DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 10 Del. C. § 6902 (1999). 3 Seawright v. State, Del. Supr., No. 522, 1999, Berger, J. (May 16, 2001).

Page 827