IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB JR., §
§ No. 155, 2016
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. N16M-02-191
STEVEN WESLEY, §
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 20, 2016
Decided: August 24, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 24th day of August 2016, 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, William Joseph Webb, Jr., 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 Webb’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We
agree and affirm.
(2) On February 18, 2016, Webb resolved two cases in the Court of
Common Pleas by pleading guilty to Harassment and Noncompliance with Bond
Conditions. Webb was immediately sentenced to thirty days of Level V
incarceration for Harassment and one year of Level V incarceration, with credit for
thirty days, suspended for Level II probation for Noncompliance with Bond
Conditions.
(3) On March 1, 2016, Webb filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the Superior Court. In an order dated March 2, 2016, the Superior Court denied
the petition. The Superior Court held that Webb was legally detained as a result of
his thirty day Level V sentence for Harassment. This appeal followed. In his
opening brief, Webb argues that: (i) the Superior Court judge should have recused
himself because he recused himself from sentencing Webb in a different case in
2000 after Webb threatened him; and (ii) the respondent’s failure to answer the
petition violates the spirit and purpose of the Superior Court’s habeas corpus
jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 6901.
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on a very
limited basis.1 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.”2 Where the commitment is regular on its face and the
1
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
2
Id.
2
court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter, habeas corpus does not afford
a remedy to the petitioner.3
(5) Webb has offered no evidence that the Court of Common Pleas lacked
jurisdiction to sentence him or that the commitment was irregular on its face. As
to his claim regarding the Superior Court judge, there is no indication that the
Superior Court judge recognized Webb’s name from more than fifteen years earlier
or was required to recuse himself. By threatening a judge, a defendant cannot
create grounds requiring the judge to recuse herself. When a litigant engages in
improper conduct in a proceeding, he cannot then claim that the judge who
observed, or in this case, was targeted by that conduct is then disqualified from
presiding over cases involving him.4
(6) As to Webb’s claim regarding § 6901, nothing in that provision
requires a response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court
did not err in denying Webb’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As the State
3
Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177, 178 (Del. 1962); Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771, 773 (Del.
1954).
4
See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 2005 WL 535007, at *1 (Del. Feb. 14, 2005) (holding Superior
Court judge was not required to disqualify himself from presiding over sentence review hearing
of defendant who had previously been charged with threatening him in a different case); State v.
Fink, 2002 WL 1335302, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. June 14, 2002) (“[I]t is also generally held that
comments which a defendant makes critical of a judge, threats or insults directed to a judge, or
even threats of violence against a judge do not require disqualification.”); Richard E. Flamm,
Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges, § 21.7 at 634-35 (2d ed. 2007)
(recognizing litigant should not be permitted to create grounds for disqualification of judge by
making threats against judge).
3
also points out, it appears that the petition is likely moot as Webb would have
completed his thirty day Level V sentence for Harrassment and does not claim to
remain incarcerated on that conviction.
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
4
Webb v. Wesley
Combined Opinion