Case Title: Ashley v. Stiller

Citation: 

Docket Number: 255, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TIMOTHY ASHLEY,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JAMES M. STILLER, JR.,  
 
           Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 255, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. K11C-12-008 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: October 5, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 15, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of November 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
25(a),1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Timothy Ashley, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 2, 2012 order dismissing his complaint.  The defendant-
appellee, James M. Stiller, Jr., has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
                                                 
1 On October 3, 2012, the appellee also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) 
on the ground that the appellant failed to file his opening brief in accordance with the briefing 
schedule set by the Court. 
 
2
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the appellant’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on September 15, 2010, Ashley pleaded 
guilty to Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and the 
lesser-included offense of Attempted Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine.  
As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed a number of other criminal 
charges.  Ashley was sentenced to 18 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 4 years for probation.  Ashley did not appeal his convictions, but 
filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  After finding, among other things, that Ashley had not 
demonstrated that his counsel was ineffective, the Superior Court denied the 
motion.  
 
(3) 
On December 13, 2011, Ashley filed a civil complaint in the Superior 
Court alleging negligence and/or breach of contract against Stiller, his court-
appointed defense counsel with respect to the criminal charges against him.  The 
complaint alleged that Stiller failed to carry out Ashley’s instructions, lied to 
Ashley regarding legal issues, handled his criminal case negligently and breached 
his contract with Ashley.  The complaint further alleged that, had Ashley not 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
pleaded guilty, he would not have been convicted of the criminal charges against 
him.   
 
(4) 
In connection with his complaint, Ashley filed an application to 
proceed in forma pauperis.  In its order dated May 2, 2012, the Superior Court 
granted Ashley’s application, but also dismissed his complaint as factually and 
legally frivolous pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §8803(b).   
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Ashley claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it dismissed his complaint.   
 
(6) 
Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §8803(b), the Superior Court must 
review the plaintiff’s complaint once his application to proceed in forma pauperis 
is granted.  If the complaint is found to be factually frivolous, malicious or legally 
frivolous such that even a pro se litigant should have found well-settled law 
disposing of the issues raised, the complaint shall be dismissed. 
 
(7) 
It is well-settled that there is no contractual relationship between a 
defendant and an attorney appointed by the Superior Court to represent the 
defendant in criminal matters.3  Moreover, an attorney appointed by the Superior 
Court in such matters has qualified immunity from legal malpractice claims under 
the State Tort Claims Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §§4001-4005.4  As such, in order 
to state a claim against such an attorney, the defendant must plead facts supporting 
                                                 
3 Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949, 953-55 (Del. 1990). 
4 Id. at 950-52. 
 
4
gross negligence.5  In addition, Superior Court Civil Rule 9 requires that any claim 
of negligence must be pleaded with particularity. 
 
(8) 
We have reviewed Ashley’s complaint in light of the applicable legal 
standards.  We agree with the Superior Court that Ashley’s complaint was legally 
frivolous under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §8803(b) and that dismissal was warranted.  
As such, we conclude that there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of 
the Superior Court. 
 
(9) 
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 motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
   
 
 
   
                                                 
5 Id. at 952-53. 
6 The appellee’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied as moot.