Case Title: Epperson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 123, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN S. EPPERSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 123, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9408009291 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 5, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of June 2006, 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, Kevin S. Epperson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s February 22, 2006 order denying his 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 Epperson’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
In March 1996, Epperson was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the 
First Degree.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifty-two years of 
Level V incarceration followed by eight years of probation.  Epperson’s 
convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2  
Since that time, Epperson has filed numerous postconviction motions 
challenging his convictions and sentences, all of which have been 
unsuccessful.  
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Epperson claims that his trial counsel provided 
ineffective assistance and that the trial judge improperly failed to appoint 
substitute counsel, made erroneous evidentiary rulings and improperly 
instructed the jury.  Epperson also claims that the Superior Court erred by 
denying his postconviction motion as procedurally barred3 and instead 
should have reached the merits of the motion due to a miscarriage of 
justice.4  
                                          
 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Epperson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 214, 1996, Walsh, J. (Feb. 6, 1997). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1), (2), (3) and (4). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
3
 
(4) 
  In the absence of any evidence of a miscarriage of justice, we 
conclude that the Superior Court correctly denied Epperson’s motion as 
procedurally barred.  We also note that this appears to have been Epperson’s 
eighth postconviction motion since his direct appeal was decided in 1997.  
The record reflects that Epperson’s appeal from the Superior Court’s denial 
of his latest motion for postconviction relief is frivolous and constitutes an 
abuse of the judicial process.5  Accordingly, Epperson is hereby enjoined 
from filing any claims in this Court without first seeking leave of the Court.6  
Any future requests by Epperson to proceed in forma pauperis in any matter 
before this Court must be accompanied by an affidavit containing the 
certifications required by Section 8803(e).7       
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Epperson’s opening brief that his 
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, 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. 
                                          
 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(b). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(e). 
7 Proctor v. Bunting, 797 A.2d 671, 672-73 (Del. 2002).   
 
4
 
 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Epperson is ENJOINED from filing 
any claims in this Court in the future without first seeking leave of the Court 
in accordance with this Order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice