Case Title: Hamilton v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 229, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GARY M. HAMILTON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 229, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 92009719DI 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 19, 2013 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 15, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of July 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Gary Hamilton, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief and/or motion 
for correction of illegal sentence.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Hamilton’s 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted 
Hamilton in 1974 of Murder in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First 
 
2
Degree, and two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Hamilton to life 
imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the murder conviction and to 
additional terms of imprisonment on his other convictions.  This Court 
affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1  Since that time, 
Hamilton has filed multiple unsuccessful petitions seeking various forms of 
postconviction relief.   
(3) 
In February 2013, Hamilton filed his latest motion seeking 
postconviction relief and/or correction of illegal sentence.  He essentially 
argued that his sentence of life imprisonment should be treated as a fixed 
term of forty-five years.  After review, a Superior Court Commissioner 
recommended denial of the motion.  The Superior Court adopted the 
Commissioner’s report and recommendation.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
Hamilton raises two issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, 
he contends that the Superior Court erred in adopting the Commissioner’s 
recommendation without giving due consideration to his objections to the 
Commissioner’s report.  Second, Hamilton argues that the Superior Court 
erred in failing to apply the sentencing laws that were in effect at the time he 
was convicted. 
                                                 
1 Hamilton v. State, Del. Supr., No. 63, 1977, McNeilly, J. (Dec. 20, 1977). 
 
3
(5) 
We find no merit to Hamilton’s appeal.  The Superior Court 
correctly held that Hamilton’s life sentence with eligibility for parole 
requires Hamilton to serve his sentence for the remainder of his natural life 
unless he applies for and is granted a discretionary parole under 11 Del. C. § 
4346(c).2  His life sentence may not be treated as a fixed term of forty-five 
years entitling him to conditional release, a form of mandatory parole, 
pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4348. 3  Hamilton’s argument is controlled by 
settled Delaware law. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Jackson v. Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, 700 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Del. 1997); 
Evans v. State, 872 A.2d 539, 558 (Del. 2005). 
3 Id. at 1206.