Case Title: Meades v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 108, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT R. MEADES,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 108, 2002
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr. ID No. 82002889DI
§
§
§
Submitted: April 24, 2002
  Decided:
May 2, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This second day of May 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below,1 it appears
to the Court that:
(1)
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant,
Robert Meades, in 1982 of three counts of first degree robbery and one
count of conspiracy. The Superior Court sentenced Meades to a total period
of 32 years imprisonment.  Meades’ convictions and sentence were affirmed
                                                
1 Meades also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.  The constitutional right
to counsel does not extend to collateral attacks on convictions.  Pennsylvania v. Finley,
481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).  We find no compelling reason to justify the appointment of
counsel in this appeal.
2
on direct appeal.2  Thereafter, Meades filed unsuccessful petitions for state
postconviction relief and federal habeas corpus relief.  In January 2002,
Meades filed a motion for correction of sentence, which the Superior Court
summarily denied.  Meades appeals that decision.  We find no merit to
Meades’ appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(2)
In his opening brief on appeal, Meades contends that his three
separate, ten-year sentences for first degree robbery should be merged into
one ten-year sentence.  Meades contends that he has been subjected to
multiple punishments for one offense in violation of double jeopardy
principles.  Meades appears to assert that, although there were three bank
tellers who were victimized by his robbery, the only property taken in the
robbery (i.e., money) belonged to the bank.  Therefore, Meades argues, there
could be only one victim, the bank, and thus only one robbery.  The Superior
Court summarily rejected Meades’ motion to modify his sentence.
(3)
The Superior Court’s decision was entirely correct.  Both this
Court, in reviewing Meades’ postconviction appeal,3 and the federal district
court, in reviewing Meades’ habeas corpus petition,4 rejected Meades’
                                                
2 Meades v. State, Del. Supr., No. 365, 1982, Moore, J. (May 31, 1983).
3 Meades v. State, Del. Supr., No. 334, 1987, Horsey, J. (Apr. 22, 1988).
4 Meades v. Young, D. Del., C.A. No. 88-233-JLL, Robinson, U.S. Mag. (Mar. 14,
1989).
3
double jeopardy claim.  Accordingly, Meades’ double jeopardy claim is
barred by the law of the case doctrine and cannot be relitigated.5  The State’s
motion to affirm, therefore, must be granted.  The issue on appeal is clearly
controlled by settled Delaware law.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Meades’ motion for
appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the judgment of the Superior Court
is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                
5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 1997).