Case Title: Epperson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 42, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KEVIN S. EPPERSON,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 42, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN87-07-0944; 0945  
                      
 
Submitted: March 2, 2004  
   Decided: April 26, 2004    
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of April 2004, 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, Kevin S. Epperson, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 22, 2004 order denying his motion for correction of 
sentence.  The plaintiff-appellee, 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 
 
 
-2-
Epperson’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In 1987, Epperson was convicted of two drug offenses and, in 1988, 
was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to be suspended for six months at the 
Plummer Center, and probation.  Epperson was discharged from probation in 1992 
and, in 2003, moved for postconviction relief.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on the ground that Epperson 
already had completed his sentence.2  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s 
decision.3 
 
(3) 
In the instant appeal, Epperson claims that the Superior Court’s 2003 
denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61 constitutes an 
unconstitutional ex post facto violation, since Rule 61 was not in effect at the time 
of his trial in 1987. 
 
(4) 
Generally, a criminal law violates the ex post facto clause of the 
United States Constitution if the law a) applies to events occurring prior to its 
enactment; and b) adversely affects the offender.4  The ex post facto clause, 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Postconviction relief under Rule 61 is available only to “a person in custody or subject 
to future custody under a sentence of [the Superior] court.”  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a) (1). 
3 Epperson v. State, 2003 WL 21692751 (Del. Jul. 18, 2003). 
4 Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1124 (Del. 1991). 
 
 
-3-
however, was not meant to restrict legislative or judicial control of remedies and 
modes of procedure that do not affect substantive rights.5   
 
(5) 
When adopted in 1987, Rule 61 was intended as a purely procedural 
mechanism for presenting collateral claims for postconviction relief and was not 
intended to affect substantive rights by modifying, for example, the extent of 
punishment for a crime or the degree of proof necessary to prove guilt.6  The 
application of Rule 61 to Epperson’s postconviction motion in 2003, thus, did not 
constitute an ex post facto violation, since no substantive right of Epperson was 
affected.   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Epperson’s 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, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), 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 
                                                 
5 Id. at 1125. 
6 Id.