Opinion
No. 166, 2003.
Submitted: July 11, 2003.
Decided: September 8, 2003.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03M-02-075
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below
LAND v. CARROLL, 166 (Del. 9-8-2003) WILLIE C. LAND, Petitioner Below-Appellant, v. THOMAS CARROLL, WARDEN, Respondent Below-Appellee. No. 166, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: July 11, 2003. Decided: September 8, 2003.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03M-02-075
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
Carolyn Berger, Justice:
This 8th day of September 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, Willie C. Land, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's March 17, 2003 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) Land was sentenced by the Superior Court in 1977 to a total of 39 years Level V incarceration for Burglary in the Third Degree, Attempted Rape, and Burglary in the Second Degree. On October 25, 2000, he was released on Level IV parole to the Plummer Center. On December 1, 2000, an administrative warrant was issued for Land's arrest for violating his parole. On February 27, 2001, a hearing was held before the Board of Parole, which determined that Land had committed a parole violation. Land's parole was revoked and he was ordered to serve the balance remaining on his original Level V sentences. In addition, he lost his previously earned good time credits.
(3) In this appeal, Land claims that he is being held illegally due to a miscalculation of his good time credits.
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. 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." "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) In this case, the record reflects that, after a hearing, the Board of Parole determined that Land had violated his parole and properly reimposed the remainder of his Level V sentence, with a deduction of his good time credits.
The violations alleged were: arriving late for work; failing to report back to the center immediately after work; speaking to a female civilian through the fence at the center; and pleading guilty to a charge of terroristic threatening.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4382. The Board also permitted Land to re-apply for parole consideration in 48 months.
In his reply brief, he presents the additional arguments that he was never notified that a parole violation could result in the forfeiture of good time credits, thereby violating his due process rights, and the statute governing the forfeiture of good time credits is unconstitutional. These arguments were never presented to the Superior Court in the first instance and we decline to consider them in this appeal. SUPR.CT.R. 8.
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
Id.
Id. (quoting DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 6902(1)).
There is no evidence that Land is being held illegally and the Superior Court properly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.