Case Title: Elam v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 598, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MICHAEL ELAM,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 598, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. No. IN98-09-1109 
                      
 
Submitted: April 23, 2004  
   Decided: June 18, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Michael Elam, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s November 25, 2003 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.     
 
(2) 
In December 1999, a Superior Court jury found Elam guilty of 
Robbery in the Second Degree.  In February 2000, Elam was declared an habitual 
 
 
-2-
offender1 and was sentenced to 15 years incarceration at Level V.  Elam’s 
conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Elam claims that the Superior Court failed to address 
his claim that the trial judge abused his discretion by permitting evidence of prior 
bad acts to be presented to the jury.  To the extent Elam has not argued other 
grounds to support his appeal that were raised previously, those grounds are 
deemed waived and will not be addressed by this Court.3 
 
(4) 
We have reviewed Elam’s motion for postconviction relief filed in the 
Superior Court as well as the Superior Court’s decision.  Elam is correct that he 
raised the issue of the admission of prior bad acts evidence in his motion for 
postconviction relief and that the Superior Court did not address the issue in its 
November 25, 2003 order.  Elam’s claim fails, however, because, even if the 
Superior Court had addressed the issue, it would have been compelled to deny the 
claim as procedurally defaulted because it was not raised in Elam’s direct appeal.4  
Moreover, the record does not support cause for relief from the procedural default 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a) (2001). 
2 Elam v. State, Del. Supr., No. 70, 2000, Steele, J. (Jan. 16, 2001). 
3 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).  In his postconviction motion, Elam also 
argued that the police violated his constitutional rights by taking his photo for identification 
purposes, the prosecutor violated the discovery rules, and his attorney failed to arrange for an 
alibi witness at trial. 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3). 
 
 
-3-
or prejudice from a violation of Elam’s rights.5  Thus, because the failure of the 
Superior Court to address Elam’s claim does not affect the outcome of this appeal, 
the decision of the Superior Court must be affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3) (A) and (B).