Evans v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    AUGUSTUS H. EVANS, JR., §
    § No. 429, 2016
    Petitioner Below- §
    Appellant, §
    § Court Below: Superior Couit
    v. § of the State of Delaware
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE, § C.A. No. Sl6M-07~019
    § Cr. ID 0609011528A
    Respondent Below- §
    Appellee. §
    Subrnitted: September 12, 2016
    Decided: October 31, 2016
    Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.
    _QM
    This 31st day of October 2016, upon consideration of the notice to show
    cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:
    (1) The appellant, Augustus H. Evans, Jr., filed this appeal from the
    Superior Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior
    Court held that Evans’ writ of habeas corpus, in fact, sought to challenge his
    underlying convictions and sentence by asserting that the trial judge was biased.
    The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to Evans to show cause Why his appeal
    should not be dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim.
    (2) Evans filed a response to the notice to show cause on September 12,
    2016.l He contends that a structural error exists in his criminal case because the
    judge was biased. He further contends that the issue of the judge’s bias has never
    been adjudicated and that a Writ is the only means to have the issue resoIved.
    (3) After careful consideration, we find it manifest that Evans’ appeal is
    frivolous and should be dismissed In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus is very
    limited and only provides relief to obtain judicial review of the jurisdiction of the
    court ordering the prisoner’s commitment2 In this case, the Superior Court’s
    commitment of Evans is valid on its face, and Evans is being held pursuant to that
    valid commitment.~?J Thus, there was no basis for a writ of habeas corpus.
    Moreover, Evans’ contention that his claim of judicial bias has never been
    adjudicated is simply incorrect4
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as
    h'ivolous. Evans’ motion to stay is DEN"[ED.
    BY THE COURT:
    1 On October 26, 2016, Evans filed a motion to stay these proceedings That motion is hereby
    denied.
    2 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.zd sss, 891 (Del. 1997).
    3 
    10 Del. C
    . § 6902(1) (2013).
    4 See Evans v. State, 
    2014 WL 4101785
    (Del. Aug. 19, 2014) (holding, in part, that Evans’ claim
    of judicial bias was unsupported by the record and had no merit).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 429, 2016

Judges: Holland J.

Filed Date: 10/31/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2016