Smith v. Mears

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Smith’s habeas petition because Smith did not show that his probation-violation sentencing order was facially irregular or that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court held that habeas corpus could not be used to challenge the factual basis for the probation violation, replace a timely appeal, or obtain postconviction relief. The Court declined to consider Smith’s indictment challenge because he raised it for the first time on appeal, and denied his request for counsel as moot.