Case Title: Johnson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 537, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVON JOHNSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 537, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0704013046 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: October 25, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 4, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of November 2011, 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, Davon Johnson, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s September 16, 2011 order, which denied as untimely 
Johnson’s written objections to the Commissioner’s July 26, 2011 Report, 
which recommended that Johnson’s motion for postconviction relief be 
denied,1 and also denied as untimely Johnson’s motion to amend his motion 
for postconviction relief.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
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 May 2008, Johnson entered a plea of 
guilty to Manslaughter, Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  A number of other charges, including 
Felony Murder, Murder in the Second Degree and several weapon charges, 
were dismissed by the State as part of the plea bargain.  Johnson was 
sentenced to a total of 42 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
after 25 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed the 
Superior Court’s denial of Johnson’s subsequent motion for sentence 
modification.3 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s order September 16, 
2011, Johnson claims that a) he was coerced into accepting a guilty plea; and 
b) the Superior Court imposed his sentence with a closed mind. 
 
(4) 
In its September 16, 2011 order, the Superior Court did not 
reach the merits of Johnson’s postconviction motion because it found that 
Johnson’s objections to the Commissioner’s July 26, 2011 Report, which 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 316, 2009, Berger, J. (May 10, 2010) (holding that 
there was no support for Johnson’s claim that his sentence was unfair and based upon 
unreliable information). 
 
3
were filed on August 26, 2011, to be untimely.  Johnson does not dispute 
that his objections were untimely filed under either Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, 
§512(b) (1) or Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a) (5) (ii).  Nor do we find 
any support for such a claim in the record.  We, therefore, conclude that the 
Superior Court committed no error or abuse of discretion in determining that 
Johnson’s objections were time-barred.4  Because the Superior Court did not 
reach the merits of Johnson’s postconviction motion, we decline to address 
the claims Johnson raises in this appeal regarding his guilty plea and 
sentencing.   
 
(5) 
In its September 16, 2011 order, the Superior Court also denied 
Johnson’s August 29, 2011 motion to amend his postconviction motion as 
untimely because the Commissioner already had submitted his Report 
regarding Johnson’s postconviction claims at the time the motion was filed.  
We find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in 
so doing.   
 
(6) 
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 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
4 Walker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 87, 2007, Berger, J. (Oct. 11, 2007). 
 
4
 
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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice