Case Title: Morris v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY MORRIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 96, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 9812010539 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 22, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 11, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of April 2012, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to 
the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Anthony Morris, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Morris’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm.  
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Morris in July 
1999 of delivery of cocaine and two related misdemeanor charges.1 The Superior 
Court sentenced him to a total period of eight years and six months at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after serving one year and upon successful 
completion of Boot Camp for seven years of decreasing levels of supervision.  
Since that time, Morris has been found in violation of the terms of his probation on 
four separate occasions.  In 2002, a Superior Court jury found him guilty of a 
separate drug offense for which he received a fifteen-year sentence.   
 
(3) 
In December 2009, Morris filed a motion for postconviction relief, 
arguing that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction in his case because he had not 
been afforded an amenability hearing.  The Superior Court denied that motion, and 
this Court affirmed on appeal.2 In January 2012, Morris filed his second motion for 
postconviction relief.  He again argued that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction 
over his juvenile drug offense because he had never had an amenability hearing in 
the Family Court.  The Superior Court denied his motion.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
Morris raises two issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, he 
contends that an amenability hearing cannot be waived.  This claim, however, has 
been previously adjudicated against Morris and is procedurally barred by Superior 
                                                 
1 The record reflects that Morris was 17 years old at the time of his arrest.  The State requested an amenability 
hearing in the Family Court.  Morris, however, who was represented by counsel, appeared in Family Court with his 
mother where they represented to the Family Court judge their desire to waive the amenability hearing and have the 
charges transferred to Superior Court. 
2 Morris v. State, 2010 WL 2183492 (Del. June 1, 2010). 
 
3
Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4).  Morris also contends that his trial counsel was 
constitutionally ineffective for allowing Morris to waive his amenability hearing.  
Morris did not raise this claim in the motion for postconviction relief that he filed 
in the Superior Court.  This Court will not consider claims for the first time on 
appeal.3  Even if we were to consider this newly-raised argument, it is clear that his 
ineffectiveness claim is simply a refinement of his first argument.  As such, this 
claim also is barred as previously adjudicated.4 
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we find it manifest that the judgment 
below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned 
decision dated January 26, 2012. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
Morris’ second motion for postconviction relief was untimely and previously 
adjudicated and that appellant had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (2012). 
4 See Skinner v. State, 607 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Del. 1992) (holding that the Court is not required to consider a 
previously adjudicated claim simply because it has been refined or restated).