Johnson v. Brian Emig, Warden, J.T.V.C.C.

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 394, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN JOHNSON, § § No. 394, 2025 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N25M-07-005 BRIAN EMIG, WARDEN, § Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N) J.T.V.C.C., § § Respondent Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 22, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In 2017, the appellant, Jonathan S. Johnson, pleaded guilty to drug

dealing cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony

(“PFDCF”) in exchange for dismissal of multiple other charges. He was declared to

be a habitual offender and sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment for

PFDCF and to eight years of imprisonment, suspended for decreasing levels of

supervision, for drug dealing. Johnson did not file a direct appeal, but he has filed numerous writ petitions and motions for postconviction relief, to withdraw his guilty

plea, or challenging his sentence.1

(2) In July 2025, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He

claimed that his indictment was defective because the count alleging PFDCF did not

identify the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the gun. The Superior Court

denied the petition, holding that the indictment charged PFDCF substantially in the

words of the applicable statute and sufficiently put Johnson on notice of the charge

against him. The court also noted that Johnson and his attorney received discovery

that identified the handgun in greater detail before he pleaded guilty. Johnson filed

two motions for reargument or to alter or amend a judgment, which the Superior

Court denied. Johnson has appealed to this Court.

(3) “[T]he writ of habeas corpus under Delaware law provides relief on a

very limited basis.”2 Specifically, it “provides an opportunity for an illegally

confined or incarcerated person to obtain judicial review only of the jurisdiction of

the court ordering the commitment.”3 When the commitment is regular on its face

and the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford

a remedy to the petitioner. 4

1 The Superior Court docket in the criminal case has nearly 200 entries after Johnson’s sentencing. Johnson has also filed eight appeals or writ petitions in this Court, not including the current appeal. 2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). 3 Carter v. May, 2021 WL 2419705, at *1 (Del. June 4, 2021). 4 Id. 2 (4) The Superior Court did not err by denying Johnson’s petition and

motions for reargument. Johnson is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior

Court after he pleaded guilty to PFDCF, a felony.5 “The Superior Court clearly has

jurisdiction over the disposition of felony charges,” 6 and Johnson has not shown that

the absence of details about the gun in the indictment deprived the court of

jurisdiction. 7 The Superior Court correctly determined that Johnson is not entitled

to habeas corpus relief. 8

(5) Finally, we note that Johnson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

was improvidently granted in this case. Johnson’s motion falsely stated that he has

never been found by any court to have abused the judicial process by filing frivolous

or malicious litigation. After several warnings, we previously concluded that

Johnson’s untimely, repetitive, and frivolous filings constituted an abuse of the

judicial process and enjoined him from filing appeals in this Court without first

5 11 Del. C. § 1447A(a). 6 See West v. May, 2024 WL 707261, at *2 (Del. Feb. 20, 2024). 7 See In re Gordon, 2020 WL 5883444, at *1 (Del. Oct. 2, 2020) (stating that petitioner had “not shown that the absence of the victim’s age in the indictment [for second-degree rape] deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction”); Miller v. State, 2020 WL 582715 (Del. Feb. 5, 2020) (rejecting claims that Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because of deficiencies in the indictment); Fountain v. State, 288 A.2d 277, 278-79 (Del. 1972) (holding that inadequacy of information in indictment, although “indeed defective” because it did not allege all elements of the crime, was not a jurisdictional defect). 8 In his opening brief in this appeal, Johnson makes various arguments that he did not raise in his habeas petition, such as that his counsel “slept through negotiation of plea contract.” Those contentions also do not demonstrate that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and therefore provide no basis for habeas relief under Delaware law. 3 seeking leave of the Court.9 That injunction remains in place. The Clerk of this

Court is directed to refuse any future filings from Johnson related to these criminal

convictions and sentence unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee

or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit

containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion is first

granted by the Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

9 Johnson v. State, 2024 WL 3518357 (Del. July 23, 2024). 4