Pierce

Summary

The court held that the respondent could appeal the Superior Court's grant of habeas corpus because the appeal challenged the threshold availability of the writ rather than the merits of the underlying commitment judgment. Although Pierce's commitment violated the statutory requirement that a qualified examiner opine that he was sexually dangerous, habeas corpus was unavailable because the error could have been raised through ordinary appellate procedures and did not involve a constitutionally void commitment. The court vacated the habeas order and directed the Superior Court to treat the petition as a motion for relief from judgment, which must be allowed.