ID No. 0310003717.Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.Date Submitted: December 20, 2005.
Date Decided: March 29, 2006.
Upon Consideration of Motion for Evasion of Writ of Habeas Corpus. DENIED.
SCOTT, J.
This 29th day of March 2006, upon consideration of the Motion for Evasion of Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Errick M. Wright (“Wright”), it appears to the Court that:
1) On June 2, 2005, a violation-of-probation hearing was held and Wright was found in violation of probation. Wright was brought to Sussex Community Corrections Center (“SCCC”).
2) On July 25, 2005, Wright filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. In that petition, Wright asserted that the State had violated his constitutional rights. He also alleged that being held at Level IV was excessive and unusual, thereby, warranting a review of his sentence. Wright’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on October 27, 2005.
3) On October 24, 2005, Probation Parole Officer Douglas J. Davis (“Davis”) submitted a violation report which was filed in this Court on November 16, 2005. In that report Davis alleged that Wright had violated various conditions of supervision. Davis specifically noted that following a disciplinary hearing on October 21, 2005, Wright was returned to higher security pending a violation-of-probation hearing in Superior Court, New Castle County. The violation-of-probation hearing was held on November 1, 2005.
4) On November 7, 2005, Wright filed a Motion for Evasion of Writ of Habeas Corpus. In this motion, Wright alleges that on October 21, 2005, Robert George (“Respondent”), a warden at Sussex Community Corrections Center, intentionally and illegally transferred him into the custody of Rick Kearney, a warden at Sussex Correctional Institute. Wright contends that the transfer to another facility violated the law. 10 Del. C. § 6916 reads, in pertinent part:
Whoever, having in his or her custody or under his or her power, any person entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, whether any writ has been issued or not, with intent to elude the service of such writ, or to avoid the effect thereof, transfers the prisoner to the custody, or places the prisoner under the power or control of any other person, or conceals the prisoner, or changes the place of the prisoner’s confinement, shall forfeit and pay to the party aggrieved $3,600.
5) Upon review of the foregoing Motion for Evasion of Writ of Habeas Corpus and the record in this case, it is the decision of the Court that the Motion is hereby DENIED. Petitioner does not allege and the record is void of any indication that Respondent transferred Wright to Sussex Correctional Institution with the intent to elude the service of a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, Wright’s Motion for Evasion of Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.