Case Title: Biggins v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 471, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 471, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9609015504 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 10, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, James Arthur Biggins, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 4, 2009 order denying his motion for a 
certificate of reasonable doubt.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) 
In 1997, Biggins was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 
three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree, Assault 
in the Third Degree, and Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree.  He 
was sentenced to a total of thirty years of Level V incarceration, to be 
followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed Biggins’ 
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1  Biggins has filed numerous 
postconviction motions, all unsuccessful, since that time. 
 
(3) 
In 2009, approximately twelve years after his guilty verdict and 
over ten years after his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Biggins 
filed a motion for a certificate of reasonable doubt in the Superior Court.2  
The Superior Court denied the motion on the ground that his underlying 
claims were procedurally barred pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rules 
61(i) (1), (2), and (4).   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Biggins claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied his motion.  He contends that the DNA evidence 
used against him at trial should have been suppressed.   
 
(5) 
Neither the Superior Court nor this Court has the authority to 
rule on a motion for a certificate of reasonable doubt in a criminal 
                                                 
1 Biggins v. State, Del. Supr., No. 468, 1997, Walsh, J. (Nov. 24, 1999). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4502. 
 
3
proceeding in which final judgment was entered over a decade ago.3  We, 
therefore, affirm the Superior Court’s decision, albeit for reasons different 
from those relied upon by the Superior Court.4 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Id.; Eller v. State, 531 A.2d 948, 951 (Del. 1987). 
4 Unitrin, Inc. v. Amer. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995).