Boyer v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DONALD J. BOYER, §
§ No. 288, 2017
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N17M-06-327
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 86010533DI (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 11, 2017
Decided: November 8, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 8th day of November 2017, 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) The appellant, Donald J. Boyer, 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 Shelley’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) On April 2, 1980, a Superior Court jury found Boyer guilty of multiple
crimes, including Attempted Murder in the First Degree. Boyer was sentenced to
life imprisonment for Attempted Murder in the First Degree, plus fourteen years for
his other convictions. This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct
appeal1 as well as the Superior Court’s denial of Boyer’s motions for postconviction
relief.2
(3) On June 29, 2017, Boyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Superior Court. On July 5, 2017, the Superior Court denied the petition. The
Superior Court found Boyer was legally detained. This appeal followed. In his
opening brief, Boyer argues that he has been illegally detained since 1996 because
the Department of Correction records show a 1996 release date for his sentences.
(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
had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford a remedy to
the petitioner.5
(5) Boyer has offered no evidence that the Superior Court lacked
jurisdiction to sentence him or that the commitment was irregular on its face. The
1
Boyer v. State, 436 A.2d 1118 (Del. 1981).
2
See, e.g., Boyer v. State, 2014 WL 1512802, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014) (affirming denial of
Boyer’s fourth motion for postconviction relief).
3
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
4
Id.
5
Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.
1954).
2
sentencing order and Department of Correction records reflect Boyer was sentenced
to life imprisonment for Attempted Murder in the First Degree. The Superior Court
did not err in denying Boyer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
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/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3