Submitted: July 7, 2017 
Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
L. Valihura Justice.
21st day of July 2017, upon consideration of the
appellant's opening brief, the appellee's motion to
affirm,  and the record below, it appears to the
(1) The appellant, Leroy Shelley, 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) In November 2007, a Superior Court jury found Shelley
guilty of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, two
counts of Kidnapping in the Second Degree, two counts of
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony,
and one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree for crimes
that occurred in 1997. Shelley was originally indicted in
1998 while imprisoned in Pennsylvania for different crimes
and then reindicted in 2007. Shelley was sentenced to
non-suspended Level V time of eighteen and a half years. He
did not file a direct appeal. Since his conviction, Shelley
has filed three unsuccessful motions for postconviction
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and one
unsuccessful motion for modification of sentence under
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.
(3) On April 20, 2017, Shelley filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Superior Court. On April 24, 2017, the
Superior Court denied the petition. The Superior Court held
that Shelley was legally detained. This appeal followed. In
his opening brief, Shelley argues that the Superior Court
lacked jurisdiction to convict him because the statute of
limitations expired before his reindictment, the original
indictment was not dismissed, and he was tried more than 180
days after he signed his Interstate Agreement on Detainers
compact in violation of the Interstate Agreement on
(4) In Delaware, the writ of habeas corpus provides relief on
a very limited basis. 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." 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
(5) Shelley has not shown that the Superior Court lacked
jurisdiction to sentence him for the crimes he
committed. In addition, Shelley did not file an
appeal from his 2007 conviction. He may not use a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus as a substitute for a
timely-filed appeal. The Superior Court did not err in denying
Shelley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We warn
Shelley that if he continues to file appeals from repetitive
claims, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals
without leave of the Court.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is GRANTED
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
 The motion to affirm was filed on May
25, 2017, but the record was filed on ...