Case Title: Parker v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 542, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HUBERT E. PARKER,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
No. 542, 2000 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Cr.A.Nos. S99-01-0063, 0065, 
§ 
0067; S99-04-0266, 0270,  
          Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
0272; S99-02-0603. 
          Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Def. ID Nos. 9812020293 
§ 
 
 
  9902013946 
§        
 
  9903018902 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 12, 2001 
 
 
Decided: 
March 14, 2001 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm,1 it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Hubert Parker (“Parker”), has filed 
this appeal from the Superior Court’s order of October 18, 2000, that denied 
                                          
 
1 The Court has not considered the appellant’s “Motion to Amend” that was filed on 
February 26, 2001, in an apparent response to the motion to affirm.  See Supr. Ct. R. 
25(a) (providing that there shall be no response to a motion to affirm unless requested by 
the Court).   
 
2 
Parker’s pro se “motion for writ of plain error.”  The State of Delaware has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Parker’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On January 24, 2000, Parker pleaded guilty to seven charges, 
i.e., two counts each of Third Degree Burglary and Theft, and one count 
each of Possession of Cocaine, Second Degree Conspiracy, and Criminal 
Mischief.  In return for Parker’s plea, the State agreed to nolle prosse 12 
other charges. 
(3) 
The Superior Court declared Parker an habitual offender and 
sentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 17 years at Level 
V, suspended after five years mandatory incarceration, for one year at a 
Level IV residential substance abuse treatment program, suspended upon 
successful completion of the program, for 11 years of probation.3  Parker did 
not file a direct appeal. 
(4) 
By order dated May 16, 2000, the Superior Court denied 
Parker’s motion for correction of sentence.  On appeal, this Court affirmed.4  
                                          
 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 As contemplated by the plea agreement, on February 29, 2000 and again on March 1, 
2000, the Superior Court issued amended sentencing orders specifying the amounts of 
restitution. 
4 Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 244, 2000, Veasey, C.J., 2000 WL 1152406 (July 26, 
2000) (ORDER). 
 
3 
By order dated June 1, 2000, the Superior Court denied Parker’s motion for 
postconviction relief.5  On appeal, this Court affirmed, without reaching the 
merits of the denial of postconviction relief.6  
(5) 
In his “motion for writ of plain error” and in his opening brief 
on appeal, Parker alleges that the State “breached its [plea] agreement,” “hid 
favorable evidence” and “reneged on unfulfilled plea agreement.”  Parker 
further alleges that his guilty plea was coerced as a result of police 
misconduct. 
(6) 
It is clear that the Superior Court properly denied Parker’s 
“motion for writ of plain error.”  In Delaware, Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61 is the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a final judgment of 
conviction.7  Treating Parker’s “motion for a writ of plain error” as a motion 
for postconviction relief under Rule 61, the Superior Court properly 
determined that Parker’s motion was procedurally barred as formerly 
adjudicated.8 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of Parker’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  The issues raised are clearly controlled by settled 
                                          
 
5 State v. Parker, Del. Super., Cr.A.No. S99-01-0063, Stokes, J. (June 1, 2000), rearg. 
denied, (June 29, 2000). 
6 Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 341, 2000, Walsh, J., 2001 WL 2133889 (Feb. 26, 
2001) (ORDER) (affirming the denial of Parker’s untimely motion for reargument). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2). 
8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).  
 
4 
Delaware law, and to the extent the issues on appeal implicate the exercise 
of judicial discretion, there was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice