Brunhammer v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL BRUNHAMMER, §
§ No. 222, 2018
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N18M-03-324
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 6, 2018
Decided: August 1, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, the Court concludes that:
(1) The appellant, Paul Brunhammer, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State of Delaware has
filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of Brunhammer’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and
affirm.
(2) In October 2010, Brunhammer was indicted for two counts of Rape in
the Second Degree and one count of Sexual Solicitation of a Child. At that time, he
was serving a seven-year sentence for another crime in New Jersey. After he was
returned to Delaware, Brunhammer pled guilty to Rape in the Third Degree, a lesser
included offense of Rape in the Second Degree. The Superior Court sentenced
Brunhammer to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after ten
years for two years of Level III probation. On direct appeal, this Court held that
Brunhammer had waived his speedy trial claim by knowingly and voluntarily
pleading guilty.1 We affirmed Brunhammer’s conviction.2
(3) On March 27, 2018, Brunhammer filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Superior Court. On March 29, 2018, the Superior Court denied the
petition, finding Brunhammer was legally detained. As he did below, Brunhammer
argues that he is entitled to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the State
violated his right to a speedy trial.
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very limited
basis.3 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.”4 Where the commitment is regular on its face and the court clearly
1
Brunhammer v. State, 2017 WL 991081, at *2 (Del. Mar. 13, 2017).
2
Id.
3
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997). See also 10 Del. C. § 6902.
4
Hall, 692 A.2d at 891.
2
had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to
the petitioner.5
(5) The Superior Court did not err in denying Brunhammer’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. Brunhammer’s commitment is valid on its face. This Court
previously addressed and rejected Brunhammer’s speedy trial claim. We warn
Brunhammer that if he continues to file appeals from repetitive claims, he will be
enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
5
Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.
1954).
3