Case Title: Hembree v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 248, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TIMOTHY J.  HEMBREE,
§
§
No.  248, 2003
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court of 
§
the State of Delaware, in and 
v.
§
for Sussex County in S95-09-
§
0086R2, 0087R2.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  9509002602
Submitted: July 3, 2003
Decided:
September 26, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 26th day of September 2003, 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 appellant, Timothy J. Hembree, filed an appeal from an order
of the Superior Court denying his second motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The appellee, State of Delaware,
has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it
is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We
agree and affirm.
1Del.  Code Ann.  title 11, § 4214(b) (2001).
2Hembree v.  State, 1997 WL 33103 (Del.  Supr.).
3See Hembree v.  Kearney, D.  Del., C. A. No. 97-361, Farnan, J.  (Dec.  15, 1999).
2
(2)
In December 1995, Hembree was convicted by a Sussex County
Superior Court jury on charges of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and
Assault in the Second Degree.  The Superior Court declared Hembree an
habitual offender1 and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus five years.  
(3)
On appeal, Hembree claimed, in one of two issues, that the
Superior Court failed to conduct a full and fair habitual offender hearing.  This
Court found that Hembree’s claim was without merit and affirmed the
conviction and sentence.2
(4)
After his appeal, Hembree filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Hembree unsuccessfully raised four grounds for relief: (i) he was denied due
process and equal protection because he did not receive a jury trial on his
habitual offender status; (ii) his life sentence was disproportionate; (iii) his life
sentence was due to his failure to accept a plea bargain and was based upon a
selective enforcement of the law; and (iv) the victim did not want him to receive
a life sentence and was not permitted to address the sentencing court.3 
3
(5)
In November 2000, Hembree filed a “writ of plain error” in the
Superior Court.  Hembree alleged that he was deprived of a “factual
determination” habitual offender hearing.  Hembree’s writ was summarily denied
as previously adjudicated on November 22, 2000, and he did not appeal. 
(6)
In April 2002, Hembree filed his first postconviction motion.
Hembree raised three issues: (i) the Superior Court failed to hold a separate
habitual offender hearing; (ii) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (iii)
prosecutorial misconduct.  By order dated April 10, 2002, the Superior Court
denied Hembree’s motion as procedurally barred.  Hembree did not appeal that
decision.  
(7)
On April 9, 2003, Hembree filed a second motion for
postconviction relief.  Hembree raised thirteen grounds for relief, including (i)
illegal arrest, (ii) lack of jurisdiction, and (iii) ineffective assistance of counsel.
By order dated April 14, 2003, the Superior Court denied Hembree’s motion
as procedurally barred.  Hembree filed a motion for reargument, which the
Superior Court denied on May 1, 2003.   This appeal followed.
(8)
In this appeal from the denial of his second postconviction motion,
Hembree argues that (i) he was denied due process when the information failed
to allege that his conduct was intentional, which is an essential element of title
4Title 11, section 531 of the Delaware Code defines the offense of Attempt to Commit a
Crime.
5To the extent Hembree has not briefed any remaining postconviction claims, the claims
are deemed waived and abandoned on appeal.  Murphy v.  State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993).
6Bailey v.  State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del.  1991).
4
11, section 531 of the Delaware Code4; (ii) the arrest warrant was similarly
deficient; (iii) he was deprived the effective assistance of counsel; (iv) the
prosecutor erred in proceeding by information rather than by indictment; (v) his
waiver of a preliminary hearing was constitutionally invalid; (vi) the trial court’s
jury instructions were improper; and (vii) his sentence was illegal because he
was denied his right to a separate habitual offender hearing.5  
(9)
When considering a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, the Superior Court must apply the procedural
requirements of the rule before reaching the merits of the claim.6  In this case,
the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hembree’s
motion for postconviction relief on procedural grounds.     
(10)
Hembree’s convictions became final in January 1997, more than
five years before he filed his second motion for post-conviction relief.
Hembree’s claims, therefore, are time-barred under Rule 61(i)(1) and barred as
repetitive under Rule 61(i)(2), unless Hembree can show the applicability of one
7Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(5).
8Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(4).
5
of the exceptions set forth in Rule 61(i)(5).  Moreover, to the extent Hembree’s
motion raised claims that were previously adjudicated, the claims are barred
under Rule 61(i)(4) unless Hembree can demonstrate that reconsideration is
required in the interest of justice.  
(11)
In an attempt to avail himself of the exceptions to the procedural
bars of Rule 61(i)(1) and (2), Hembree argues that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to convict him.  Hembree provides no support, however, for his
claim that his signed waiver of indictment was invalid, and none of his other
conclusory allegations state “a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of
justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental
legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the
judgment of conviction.”7 Moreover, Hembree has not demonstrated that the
Court should reconsider his formerly adjudicated claims in the interest of
justice.8
(12)
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is
without merit.  The issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled
6
Delaware law.  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’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of
the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice