Hartmann v. State ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DETLEF HARTMANN, §
§ No. 54, 2023
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. K23M-01-025
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Crim. ID No. 9912000027 (K)
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 8, 2023
Decided: March 17, 2023
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
(1) The appellant, Detlef Hartmann, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s order, dated January 27, 2023, denying his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. The State has moved to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Hartmann’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.
We agree and affirm.
(2) In March 2001, Hartmann pleaded guilty to second-degree unlawful
sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The Superior Court
sentenced Hartmann to a total of nineteen years of imprisonment, to be suspended
after ten years for decreasing levels of supervision.1
(3) In 2012, the Superior Court found Hartmann to be in violation of
probation (“VOP”) and sentenced him for that violation. Hartmann appealed, and
this Court affirmed.2
(4) In 2019, the Superior Court found Hartmann to be in violation of
probation for a second time. The court sentenced Hartmann as follows: (i) for the
first count of unlawful sexual contact, to two years at Level V Transitions Sex
Offender Program; and (ii) for the second count of unlawful sexual contact, to two
years of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year and successful completion
of the Transitions Sex Offender Program for two years of Level III probation. This
Court affirmed.3
(5) In January 2023, Hartmann filed documents in the Superior Court in
which he sought a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition. The Superior
Court denied the request, holding that Hartmann was not entitled to habeas corpus
relief because Hartmann was legally detained under the 2019 VOP sentence order.
Specifically, the court stated that the 2019 VOP sentence order provided for
suspension of the two-year sentence for the second count of unlawful sexual contact
1
Hartmann v. State, 2013 WL 434052, at *1 (Del. Feb. 4, 2013).
2
Id.3
Hartmann v. State, 2019 WL 6813986 (Del. Dec. 12, 2019).
2
only after one year at Level V and successful completion of the Transitions Sex
Offender Program, and Hartmann had not completed the Transitions Sex Offender
Program. Hartmann has appealed to this Court. He appears to claim that the
Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the VOP proceedings, both in
2019 and as to the first VOP—or as to new criminal charges that gave rise to the
VOPs—because of alleged procedural defects in the proceedings that violated his
due-process and other rights. For example, Hartmann asserts that he was detained
without a preliminary hearing; the allegations against him were false and the result
of malicious prosecution; his counsel was ineffective; and he was confined in illegal
conditions.
(6) “[T]he writ of habeas corpus under Delaware law provides relief on a
very limited basis.”4 Specifically, it provides a prisoner with a means of challenging
an allegedly unlawful detention on the basis that the court ordering the commitment
lacked jurisdiction.5 “Habeas corpus relief is not available to ‘[p]ersons committed
or detained on a charge of treason or felony, the species whereof is plainly and fully
set forth in the commitment.’”6
(7) The Superior Court did not err by denying Hartmann’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. Hartmann is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior
4
Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997).
5
Id.6
Id. (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)) (alteration in original).
3
Court after the court found him to be in violation of probation; the Superior Court
had jurisdiction to adjudicate the VOP and impose that sentence.7 Because
Hartmann was being held pursuant to a valid commitment, the Superior Court
correctly determined that he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.8
(8) To the extent that Hartmann argues that the Superior Court erred by not
explicitly addressing his request for a writ of prohibition, we find no basis for
reversal. Although the documents that Hartmann filed in the Superior Court referred
to a writ of prohibition, they established no basis for that relief. “The writ of
prohibition is a writ issued by a superior to an inferior court to prevent such court
from exercising jurisdiction over matters not legally within its cognizance, or to
prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters over which it admittedly has
cognizance.”9 Hartmann was not requesting that the Superior Court direct another
court to do anything. Moreover, to the extent that Hartmann is seeking to invoke
this Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to the Superior Court,
Hartmann has not shown that he is entitled to such relief. Because the purpose of a
writ of prohibition is to keep a trial court within the limits of its own jurisdiction,
7
See Campbell v. Williams, 2004 WL 339608, at *1 (Del. Feb. 17, 2004) (“In this case, the record
reflects that Campbell is serving a sentence imposed by the Superior Court, which had jurisdiction
to find a VOP and impose a VOP sentence.” (citing 11 Del. C. §§ 4302, 4334(c)).
8
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996).
9
Canady v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 681 (Del. 1955).
4
and we have concluded that the Superior Court did not exceed its jurisdiction, a writ
of prohibition is not warranted.
(9) Hartmann filed several motions with his opening brief. The motion for
expedited review and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis are moot. The
“Motion for Attorney Funds If Habeas Corpus or Prohibition Writ[s] Are Denied”
is denied. The Court finds no basis for the expenditure of State funds for counsel in
the circumstances of this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion for
attorney funds is DENIED. The appellant’s motions for expedited review and to
proceed in forma pauperis are moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
5