DORSEY v. STATE, 318 (Del. 2004)

Randy J. Holland, Justice.

This 18th day of November 2004, 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 appellant, Alfred Dorsey, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's order dated June 6, 2004, that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Dorsey's Opening Brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

2) On June 6, 2003, Alfred Dorsey entered a "no contest" plea in the Superior Court to Racketeering and Conspiracy in the Second Degree in Cr. A. Nos. IS03-01-0198 0200. He was sentenced immediately to a total of eight years of incarceration at Level V, with credit for 143 days previously served, suspended after serving two years at Level V and upon successful completion of Level V Key Short Term Program for twelve months at Level IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program, upon successful completion of the Level IV program. The balance of the sentence was suspended for eighteen months Level III Aftercare, followed by two years at Level III probation. No appeal was taken from this sentence.

3) On June 4, 2004, Dorsey filed a "Memorandum of Law in support of his Habeas Corpus application to the Superior Court. On June 10, 2004, the Superior Court dismissed the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

4) On appeal, Dorsey argues that he was coerced into pleading guilty because his attorney was ineffective and informed him that the wiretap interception was constitutionally valid. According to Dorsey, the State failed to notify him in a timely manner of the wiretap interception and, therefore, the evidence should have been suppressed.

5) It is manifest on the face of the Opening Brief that Dorsey is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. We have concluded that the Superior Court was correct in summarily dismissing Dorsey's application for a writ of habeas corpus.

6) It is well established that a writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for direct appeal or post-conviction relief. This Court has held that, on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the only issues to be decided are the existence of a judgment of conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction and a valid commitment of the prisoner to enforce the sentence.

7) The record reflects that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to accept Dorsey's no contest pleas to the felony charges of which he was convicted. The Superior Court's subsequent commitment of Dorsey to the custody of the Department of Correction to serve a prison sentence for the convictions is valid on its face. Accordingly, Dorsey is not challenging either the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to convict him or the validity of his commitment to State custody.

8) Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. Dorsey's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to the voluntariness of a guilty plea are not a basis for habeas corpus relief.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.