United States District Court, D. Delaware
DAVID M. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
DANA METZGER, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
M. Williams. Pro se Petitioner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
CONNOLLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
before the Court is Petitioner David M. Williams'
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 ("Petition"). (D.I. 3) For the reasons
discussed, the Court will summarily dismiss the Petition.
October 1998, a Delaware state grand jury returned a
superseding indictment (consolidating three indictments)
charging Petitioner David M. Williams
("Petitioner") with fourteen offenses. See
State v. Williams, 2000 WL 33726917, at *1 (Del. Super.
Ct. Jul. 14, 2000). Four of the counts stemmed from
Petitioner's arrest on March 25, 1998 for attempting to
burglarize a residence in Wilmington, Delaware: two counts of
attempted second degree burglary, one count of possession of
burglar's tools, and one count of criminal mischief. On
June 24, 1999, the Superior Court severed those four charges
from the remaining charges, and a two-day jury trial ensued.
However, the jury was unable to reach an unanimous verdict,
and Petitioner was retried in August 1999. Petitioner
represented himself during the second trial, and the court
appointed stand-by counsel. The jury convicted Petitioner on
all four offenses. Id.
October 1999, Petitioner pled guilty to three of the
remaining charges contained in the superseding indictment:
forgery in the second degree, attempted escape in the third
degree, and possession of a deadly weapon by a person
prohibited. See Williams v. State, 856 A.2d 1067
(Table), 2004 WL 1874693, at *1 (Del. Aug. 13, 2004). The
State dismissed the remaining charges. The Superior Court
declared Petitioner a habitual offender and sentenced him, on
all convictions, to a total of 32 years and 30 days
incarceration, suspended after 25 years for decreasing levels
of supervision. Petitioner appealed his convictions and
sentences, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
Superior Court's judgment. Id.
filed his first § 2254 petition in 2001, which the
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet denied as procedurally barred.
See Williams v. Snyder, 2003 WL 22480168 (D. Del.
Oct. 23, 2003). In 2005, Petitioner filed a second habeas
petition which contained challenges to a violation of
probation charge as well as challenges to his 1999 conviction
for second degree rape. Judge Sleet denied the repetitive
claims regarding his 1999 conviction as second or successive,
and the other claims for lack of factual support. See
Williams v. Carroll, 2006 WL 2949303 (D. Del. Oct. 17,
2006). Petitioner filed a third habeas petition in 2009,
which was denied as second or successive on November 16,
2009. See Williams v. Phelps, Civ. A. No. 9-570-GMS,
Order (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2009). In 2012, Petitioner filed his
fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition"), which was denied
as second or successive on July 31, 2013. See Williams v.
Phelps, Civ. A. No. 12-1647-GMS, Mem. & Order (D.
Del. July 31, 2013). Petitioner's fifth petition for
habeas relief, filed in 2014, was denied as second or
successive on December 29, 2015. See Williams v.
Pierce, Civ. A. No. 14-1065-GMS, Mem. & Order (D.
Del. Dec. 29, 2017).
addition to the aforementioned federal cases, Petitioner
initiated numerous post-conviction proceedings in the
Delaware state courts after his 1999 convictions. Most
relevant for the purposes of this proceeding, in or around
November 2017, Petitioner filed in the Delaware Superior
Court a "Request for a Certificate of Eligibility to
File Under 11 Del. C. § 4214(f) and Del. Super. Ct.
Spec. R. 2017-1 (d)" (hereinafter referred to as
"Request for Sentence Review"). (D.I. 3 at 4; D.I.
3-2 at 1-3); see also State v. Williams, I.D. No.
9803018202B, Order at 2 (Del. Super. Ct. June 8, 2018). In
the Request for Sentence Review, Petitioner sought permission
to file a petition seeking exercise of the Superior
Court's jurisdiction to modify his sentence under the
recently enacted 11 Del. C. § 4214(f). See
Williams, I.D. No. 9803018202B, Order at 2. The Superior
Court denied the Request for Sentence Review on June 8, 2018.
See Williams, I.D. No. 9803018202B, Order at 7.
Additionally, in November 2017, Petitioner filed in the
Superior Court a motion for credit for time-served, which the
Superior Court denied on March 27, 2018. (D.I. 3 at 4)
Petitioner's appeal is stayed in the Delaware Supreme
2018, Petitioner filed the petition for habeas corpus relief
("Petition") presently pending before the Court.
federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas
petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief." Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foil.
§ 2254. A district court can entertain a habeas petition
"in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States," and only if the relief sought is
either immediate release or speedier release. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a); see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 500 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994)). In turn, a
petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief unless he
has exhausted state remedies for his habeas claims by
"fairly presenting" the substance of the claims to
the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in
a post-conviction proceeding, and in a procedural manner
permitting the state courts to consider the claims on the
merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A);
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995);
Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir.
appears to assert the following Claims: (1) the Superior
Court erred in denying his request to reduce his
discretionary sentences via the application of earned
good-time credits and in denying his request to
withdraw/reduce his escape sentence because the escape
statute was repealed (D.I. 3 at 5); (2) the Delaware public
defender assigned to his case provided ineffective assistance
and/or operated under a conflict of interest by refusing to
file a request for sentence modification/reduction based on
the repealed escape statute issue (D.I. 3 at 7); (3) the
Delaware public defender assigned to his case provided
ineffective assistance and/or operated under a conflict of
interest by filing the "wrong 4214" on his case
(D.I. 3 at 8-9); (4) the Delaware public defender assigned to
his case provided ineffective assistance and/or operated
under a conflict of interest by filing a response to the
Superior Court with the wrong inmate's name on it (D.I. 3
at 10); (5) the Delaware Superior Court erred in denying his
Request for Sentence Review; and (6) the public defender
assigned to his case provided ineffective assistance during
the Request for Sentence Review proceeding (D.I. 3 at 13-14).
reviewed the face of the instant Petition, the Court
concludes that summary dismissal is appropriate. In Claim
One, Petitioner challenges the Superior Court's denial of
the motion for credit for time served that he filed on March
27, 2018. (D.I. 3 at 2 ¶9, 4 at ¶8(b), 5, 11
¶(d)(7), and 12 ¶¶13 & 15) Petitioner
appears to argue that his conviction and/or sentence for
escape should be withdrawn because the escape statute has
been repealed, and also that his discretionary sentences
should be reduced by applying his earned good-time credits.
(D.I. 3 at 2 ¶9, 5, 11 ¶(d)(7), and 12
¶¶13 & 15) However, Petitioner admits that his
appeal of the Superior Court's decision is currently