Case Title: Wilmer v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 351, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GERALD A. WILMER.  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 351, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9603002509 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    October 4, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of October 2010, 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, Gerald A. Wilmer, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s May 18, 2010 order adopting the May 3, 2010 
report of the Superior Court Commissioner, which recommended that 
Wilmer’s sixth motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61 be denied.1  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2 
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in July 1997, a Superior Court jury 
found Wilmer guilty of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree.  He 
was sentenced to 30 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 25 
years for decreasing levels of supervision.  Wilmer’s conviction was 
affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.3  Wilmer subsequently filed five 
motions for postconviction relief, all of which were denied by the Superior 
Court.  Two of those denials were appealed to this Court.  We affirmed the 
Superior Court’s judgment in both cases.4 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his sixth 
postconviction motion, Wilmer claims that a) the State’s re-indictment of the 
charge against him was improper; b) the Superior Court abused its discretion 
by permitting evidence of other bad acts; c) the prosecutor engaged in 
misconduct; d) his counsel provided ineffective assistance; and e) the 
Superior Court abused its discretion by denying his request for transcripts at 
State expense. 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Wilmer v. State, Del. Supr., No. 404, 1997, Walsh, J. (Mar. 6, 1998). 
4 Wilmer v. State, Del. Supr., No. 187, 2003, Holland, J. ((July 3, 2003); Wilmer v. State, 
Del. Supr., No. 411, 2006, Holland, J. (Sept. 26, 2006).  
 
3 
 
(4) 
This Court has ruled that, prior to considering the merits of 
claims asserted in postconviction proceedings, the Superior Court must first 
determine whether the procedural requirements of Rule 61 have been met.5  
In this case, the record reflects that Wilmer’s conviction became final in 
1998, when this Court’s mandate was issued.6  However, Wilmer’s sixth 
postconviction motion was not filed until 2010---well beyond the 3-year 
limitation provided in Rule 61(i)(1).7  In addition, Wilmer’s first four claims 
are all procedurally barred either because they were not asserted in a 
previous postconviction motion under Rule 61(i)(2) or because they were 
formerly adjudicated in a previous postconviction motion under Rule 
61(i)(4).  There is, moreover, no evidence of a miscarriage of justice under 
Rule 61(i)(5).  Under these circumstances, we find no error or abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Wilmer’s request for 
transcripts at State expense.  We conclude, therefore, that the Superior 
Court’s denial of Wilmer’s postconviction motion must be affirmed.   
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
                                                 
5 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2). 
7 The 3-year limitation has since been reduced to 1 year.   
 
4 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
       Justice