Webb v. Wesley, 155, 2016

William J. Webb, Jr. pled guilty in the Court of Common Pleas to Harassment and Noncompliance with Bond Conditions on Feb. 18, 2016.
He was sentenced to 30 days at Level V for Harassment and a one-year Level V sentence (with 30 days credit) suspended for Level II probation for Noncompliance.
Webb filed a habeas corpus petition in Superior Court on March 1, 2016 challenging his detention; the Superior Court denied the petition on March 2, 2016.
Webb appealed, arguing (1) the Superior Court judge should have recused himself because Webb had threatened that judge in a different case in 2000, and (2) the respondent’s failure to answer the petition violated the purpose of the Superior Court’s habeas jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 6901.
The State moved to affirm on the ground the appeal was meritless; the Supreme Court granted the motion and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief is available when commitment is facially regular and court had jurisdiction	Webb argued habeas review was warranted to challenge his detention	State argued habeas is limited and not available where commitment is regular and court had jurisdiction	Denied — habeas is not available where the commitment is regular on its face and the sentencing court had jurisdiction
Whether the Superior Court judge should have recused due to a prior threat by Webb	Webb argued the judge’s prior recusal in 2000 after a threat required recusal now	State argued a litigant cannot manufacture recusal by threatening a judge; no present basis shown	Denied — no disqualification required; prior threats do not automatically create recusal grounds
Whether failure to answer the petition violates the Superior Court’s habeas process under § 6901	Webb argued lack of a respondent answer violated the spirit/purpose of § 6901	State argued § 6901 does not require a response and the denial was proper	Denied — § 6901 imposes no requirement to answer; Superior Court did not err
Mootness of the petition given sentence length	Implied by Webb that relief was needed	State noted petition likely moot because 30-day sentence would have expired	Court noted petition appeared likely moot and Webb did not claim ongoing incarceration on that conviction

Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888 (Del. 1997) (describing habeas corpus as review of the committing court’s jurisdiction)
Jones v. Anderson, 183 A.2d 177 (Del. 1962) (habeas does not lie where commitment is regular on its face)
Curran v. Woolley, 104 A.2d 771 (Del. 1954) (same principle that facial regularity and jurisdiction preclude habeas relief)