Case Title: Foreman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 36, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BOBBY FOREMAN,
§
 
§
No.  36, 2003
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court of
§
the State of Delaware, in and for
v.
§
Sussex County in IS93-09-0250 -
§
0252, 0255, 0258, 0260, 0262.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr.  ID Nos.  93S04679DI
Appellee.
§
 93S04680DI
Submitted: July 3, 2003
Decided:
August 4, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 4th  day of August 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Bobby Foreman, filed this appeal from a Superior
Court order denying Foreman’s motion for postconviction relief.  The State has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis that the appeal is
without merit.
(2)
In 1994, Foreman was convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine,
Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances, Maintaining a
Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, Disorderly Conduct, Resisting
1Foreman v.  State, 1995 WL 365389 (Del.  Supr.)
2Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d) provides that “[t]he original [postconviction] motion
shall be presented promptly to the judge who . . . presided at trial in the proceedings leading to the
judgment under attack.  If the appropriate judge is unavailable to consider the motion, it shall be
presented to another judge in accordance with the procedure of the court for assignment of its
work.”
2
Arrest, Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver, and Possession of a
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  Foreman’s convictions
were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal in 1995.1
(3)
In July 2002, Foreman filed a motion for postconviction relief in
the Superior Court.  The docket reflects that the motion was presented to the
trial judge, the Honorable Charles H. Toliver, IV, pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61(d).2  By letter dated September 26, 2002, Judge Toliver
directed Foreman’s former defense counsel and counsel for the State to file
their responses to the motion by October 28, 2002.  
(4)
By order dated October 21, 2002, Foreman’s motion was
summarily denied, not by Judge Toliver, but by The Honorable Richard F.
Stokes.  Thereafter, by order dated December 23, 2002, Judge Toliver denied
the motion on the basis that an “identical” motion that was filed by Foreman
had been formerly adjudicated by Judge Stokes.  This appeal followed.
3See Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(4) (providing that a claim that was formerly adjudicated
. . . in a postconviction proceeding . . . is  thereafter barred, unless reconsideration of the claim is
warranted in the interest of justice).
4Super Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(5).
3
(5)
On appeal from the Superior Court’s order of December 23, 2002,
Foreman claims that (i) he was convicted on the basis of the actions of a
corrupt police officer who had planted drugs in Foreman’s motel room; (ii)
Judge Stokes should not have ruled upon the  postconviction motion; and (iii)
Judge Toliver’s denial of the motion as “formerly adjudicated” was an abuse of
discretion.  
(6)
Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the motion was routed
to Judge Stokes in error, and that Judge Toliver’s subsequent denial of the same
motion as “formerly adjudicated”3 was an abuse of discretion, Foreman’s
postconviction motion and his claims on appeal are nonetheless unavailing.
(7)
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) prohibits claims that are filed
more than three years after the judgment of conviction is final unless the
defendant (i) demonstrates that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or (ii)
presents a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a
constitutional violation.4  In Foreman’s case, in the absence of any such
showing, his motion for postconviction is clearly time-barred.
4
(8)
It is manifest on the face of Foreman’s opening brief that this
appeal is without merit.  The issues presented on appeal are controlled by
settled Delaware law.
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/ Myron T. Steele
Justice