Case Title: Deputy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 699, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
' 
' 
'  No. 699, 2002 
' 
' 
'  Court BelowCSuperior Court 
'  of the State of Delaware, 
'  in and for Kent County 
'  Cr.A. Nos. IK97-01-0018 thru  
'                               0020 
' 
 
Submitted: March 18, 2003 
  Decided:   April 17, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17
th day of April 2003, 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, Kenneth T. Deputy, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court=s December 10, 2002 order denying his second motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
1  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of 
                                                 
1The motion was filed in November 2002. 
 
 
-2- 
the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Deputy=s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.
2  We agree and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In September 1997, a Superior Court jury convicted Deputy of 
Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree and 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  He was 
sentenced to a total of 27 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 
22 years for decreasing levels of probation.  Deputy=s convictions and sentences 
were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.
3  His subsequent postconviction 
motion was denied by the Superior Court.  This Court affirmed the Superior 
Court=s judgment.
4 
                                                 
2SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
3Deputy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 541, 1997, Holland, J. (Aug. 10, 1998). 
4Deputy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 437, 1999, Berger, J. (Mar. 9, 2000). 
(3) 
In this appeal, Deputy claims that: a) his motion for postconviction 
relief was improperly denied by the Superior Court as procedurally barred; b) 
the Superior Court=s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction 
motion, including his claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, 
 
 
-3- 
violated his rights; c) his counsel was improperly permitted to file a Ano merit 
brief@ and withdraw from representing him on direct appeal; d) the violation of 
his constitutional rights during arraignment, indictment and trial serves to 
overcome any procedural bar to his claims; e) his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance at trial and on direct appeal; f) the Superior Court instructed the jury 
improperly and imposed an illegal sentence; and g) he should not be penalized 
for procedural defaults in the postconviction proceedings as they were the fault 
of his counsel. 
(4) 
Deputy=s claims are unavailing.  The Superior Court correctly 
ruled that his postconviction motion was both time-barred
5 and procedurally 
barred.
6  Moreover, consideration of Deputy=s claims is not warranted in the 
interest of justice,
7 and there is no evidence of any cause for relief from the 
procedural default or any prejudice resulting from a violation of Deputy=s 
rights.
8  Finally, there is no evidence that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction 
                                                 
5Because Deputy=s conviction became final in August 1988, his postconviction 
motion had to be filed by August 1991.  SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i) (1). 
6All of Deputy=s claims are barred as repetitive, procedurally defaulted or formerly 
adjudicated.  SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i) (2), (3) and (4). 
7SUPER. CT. CRIM. R.(i) (2) and (4). 
8SUPER. CT. CRIM. R.(i) (3). 
 
 
-4- 
to try Deputy or that there was a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional 
violation.
9 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Deputy=s 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, clearly 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware=s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                 
9SUPER. CT. CRIM. R.(i) (5).