Case Title: Miller v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 143, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN E. MILLER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 143, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0607013529 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 12, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 12, 2007 
  
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of December 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, John E. Miller, pleaded guilty to two 
counts of Misuse of Prisoner Mail and one count of Terroristic Threatening.  
The State dismissed ten additional charges.  Miller was sentenced as a 
habitual offender1 to a total of 6 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a). 
 
2
suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Miller’s 
direct appeal.2 
 
(2) 
Miller raises several issues for this Court’s consideration, which 
may fairly be summarized as follows: a) the Superior Court judge used an 
inappropriate basis to enhance his sentence; and b) the Superior Court 
should have accepted his offer to reveal the name of a terrorist in exchange 
for an investigation into irregularities regarding his arrest and imprisonment 
for robbery. 
 
(3) 
The record reflects that, between April and June 2006, while 
incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center, Miller wrote a number of 
letters, including letters to his attorney and a Superior Court judge 
threatening to kill them and a letter to an elementary school threatening to 
kill children at the school.  The transcript of Miller’s plea colloquy reflects 
that Miller understood that the State intended to move to have him declared 
a habitual offender and that, as a result, he faced a possible life sentence.  
The transcript also reflects that Miller confirmed that no one had promised 
him what his sentence would be.   
                                                 
2 In May 2007, this matter was remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing 
on Miller’s motion to represent himself in his direct appeal.  On June 26, 2007, this 
Court, having concluded that Miller had voluntarily waived his right to the assistance of 
counsel, granted Miller’s motion.  Supr. Ct. R. 26(d) (iii). 
 
3
 
(4) 
At sentencing the State asked that Miller be imprisoned for 10 
years.  The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the Superior 
Court judge made these comments:  
I understand what you’re asking me for.  I’m not going to give 
you as much time as the State is asking for, but I’m going to 
give you time.  You did this and you did it to a judge and you 
did it to a school.  It just so happened that my wife happened at 
one point, probably 25 years ago, to have taught at.  Obviously, 
she wasn’t there at the time.  So I have to give you more time 
for it.  And, hopefully, whatever the inequities that you think 
are an injustice that have occurred in regards to the others being 
taken care of in a legal process, in a legal setting.  That’s your 
avenue.  It’s not going to do you any good to write nasty letters 
to people, threatening them, thinking you’re going to get any 
greater attention than what you will have writing legal 
pleadings and having someone to write and respond to those 
legal pleadings.  
  
 
The judge then sentenced Miller to 5 years of Level V incarceration 
on the charge of terroristic threatening, half of the Level V time 
recommended by the State and significantly less than the life sentence 
authorized by the habitual offender statute.   
 
(5) 
Miller complains that the sentencing judge imposed more 
prison time because his wife worked at the school involved 25 years earlier.  
If the remark were to be viewed in isolation, Miller’s complaint would have 
merit.  In the context of all the comments made, it does not.  We read the 
comment about “more time for it” as referring to his threat to a school, an 
aggravating circumstance.  We find no evidence in the record that Miller 
 
4
was sentenced on an improper basis.  Moreover, Miller’s claim that the 
Superior Court should have accepted his offer to provide information about a 
terrorist in exchange for an investigation into his case does not constitute a 
claim cognizable on appeal.   
 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Miller’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue. 
 
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