Gibbs v. Emig, HRYCI
This text of Gibbs v. Emig, HRYCI (Gibbs v. Emig, HRYCI) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CLARENCE E. GIBBS, : C.A. No. S23M-12-002 RHR
Petitioner, :
v. :
BRIAN EMIG, WARDEN, H.R.Y.C., :
Respondent. :
ORDER DENYING PETITION SEEKING
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1) Clarence E. Gibbs (“petitioner”) has filed a petition seeking the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus.
2) Petitioner is incarcerated on the case of State v. Gibbs, Def. ID# 2107007172. He
is serving a Level 5 sentence for a violation of probation on a felony driving under the
influence conviction.
3) Petitioner asserts that the bond amount set on his administrative warrant for
violating his probation constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This assertion does not
give him a right to a writ of habeas corpus.
4) As the Supreme Court has explained:
Under Delaware law, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited basis. Specifically, it provides a prisoner with a means of challenging an allegedly unlawful detention on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction of the court ordering the commitment. When the commitment is regular on its face and the court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to the petitioner.1
1 Smith v. Akinbayo, 263 A.3d 1014, 2021 WL 4839315, *1 (Del. Oct. 15, 2021) (Footnotes and citations omitted) (TABLE).
1 Furthermore, “[u]nder Section 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
5) The Level 5 commitment in this case is regular on its face and Superior Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioner is not being illegally detained and he fails to
state a claim upon which a writ of habeas corpus may be issued.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS _____ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1) Petitioner is not being illegally detained;
2) Petitioner fails to state a claim for a writ of habeas corpus; and
3) The petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
_/s/ Robert H. Robinson, Jr.______ JUDGE
cc: Prothonotary’s Office Clarence E. Gibbs, SBI# 00155591, H.R.Y.C.I., 1301 East 12th St., Wilmington, DE 19801
2 Walls v. Phelps, 192 A.3d 554, 2018 WL 3689309, *1 (Del. Aug. 1, 2018), rearg. den. (Aug. 21, 2018) (TABLE).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gibbs v. Emig, HRYCI, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-emig-hryci-delsuperct-2023.