Matter of Taylor

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT L. TAYLOR FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS § § No. 459, 2017 § § Submitted: December 18, 2017 Decided: December 20, 2017 Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER This 20th day of December 2017, having considered the notice to show cause and the petitioner’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 6, 2017, the petitioner, Robert L. Taylor, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Taylor had previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court that was denied on October 24, 2017. In a November 6, 2017 letter, the Senior Court Clerk advised Taylor that if he wished to appeal the October 24, 2017 Superior Court order, then he needed to file an Official Form A in this Court by November 21, 2017. The Senior Court Clerk also advised that if Taylor wished to proceed with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court a notice to show cause would issue because this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Taylor did not respond to the November 6, 2017 letter or file an Official Form A. (2) On December 5, 2017, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing Taylor to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. In his response to the notice to show cause, Taylor addresses the merits of his petition, but does not address this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. This Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus.1 Taylor’s petition must therefore be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice 1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5); 10 Del. C. § 6901; In re Cantrell, 678 A.2d 525, 526 (Del. 1996). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.