Case Title: Hall v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 457, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GRAYLIN HALL,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 457, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0001001994A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 29, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 3, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 3rd day of November 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, Graylin Hall, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s June 28, 2010 order denying his third motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in July 2000, a Superior Court jury 
found Hall guilty of Assault in the Second Degree, Burglary in the Second 
Degree and Possession of Burglar’s Tools.  Hall was sentenced as a habitual 
offender2 to life in prison on his burglary conviction.  He was sentenced to 
an additional 6 years at Level V on his other convictions.  On direct appeal, 
Hall argued that the Superior Court docket sheet was insufficient to establish 
his status as a habitual offender.  This Court disagreed and affirmed his 
convictions.3 
 
(3) 
Hall’s first postconviction motion alleged that his counsel 
provided ineffective assistance.  The Superior Court’s denial of the motion 
was affirmed by this Court.4  Hall subsequently filed a motion for correction 
of sentence, which the Superior Court treated as a Rule 61 motion for 
postconviction relief, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support 
his status as a habitual offender.  Again, the Superior Court’s denial of the 
motion was affirmed by this Court.5   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(b). 
3 Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118 (Del. 2001). 
4 Hall v. State, No. 226, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Dec. 13, 2005). 
5 Hall v. State, No. 113, 2006, Holland, J. (Oct. 27, 2006). 
 
3
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his third 
postconviction motion, Hall again claims that there is insufficient evidence 
to support his status as a habitual offender.  He contends that the Superior 
Court abused its discretion when it denied his motion on procedural grounds 
because he has demonstrated a colorable claim of a constitutional violation,6 
thereby overcoming the time and procedural bars.7  Specifically, Hall claims, 
the Superior Court did not follow the procedures outlined in §4215(a) when 
it sentenced him as a habitual offender and the State did not demonstrate the 
requisite number of burglary convictions to support his status as a habitual 
offender under §4214(b).   
 
(5) 
Hall’s claim lacks both a legal and a factual basis.  Hall is 
incorrect that §4215(a) applies to his situation.  That statute applies only to 
persons who do not qualify for a habitual offender sentence under §4214(a).  
The record in this case clearly reflects that Hall was previously convicted of 
burglary at least 4 times, thereby qualifying him for habitual offender status 
under that subsection.  Moreover, Hall is incorrect that he did not have a 
sufficient number of felonies to qualify for habitual offender status under 
§4214(b).  This Court has ruled twice previously that Hall’s habitual 
offender status pursuant to §4214(b) was fully supported by the evidence 
                                                 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (2) and (4). 
 
4
presented by the State at his sentencing hearing.  In the absence of any 
evidence of clear error or an important change in circumstances, that ruling 
constitutes the law of the case and will not be altered.8 
 
(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. 
 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
8 Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069, 1093 (Del. 1987).