Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD N. JOHNSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 39, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 9812007273A 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 14, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 13, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of October 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ronald Johnson, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief 
for failure to prosecute.  We find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion 
in this case.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury found Johnson 
guilty in July 1999 of one count of menacing and one count of possession of 
a deadly weapon by a person prohibited.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Johnson as a habitual offender to eighteen years at Level V incarceration to 
 
2
be followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed 
Johnson’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.1  Thereafter, Johnson 
filed a timely motion for postconviction relief in June 2005.  In July 2005, 
counsel entered an appearance on Johnson’s behalf and filed a motion to 
amend the postconviction motion, which was granted.  Following the 
preparation of additional transcripts, counsel filed the amended motion for 
postconviction relief on May 2, 2006. On the same day, Johnson filed a pro 
se document attempting to “supplement” his counsel’s motion.   
(3) 
In March 2007, after the State and Johnson’s trial counsel filed 
their respective responses to the postconviction claims, Johnson filed a 
motion to discharge his postconviction counsel and requested to proceed pro 
se.  The Superior Court granted Johnson’s motion and gave him an extension 
of time to file a supplemental reply brief.  Thereafter, the matter was 
assigned to a Superior Court Commissioner for consideration.  Johnson 
continued to file voluminous pro se pleadings.  Because the Commissioner 
could not decipher which claims Johnson was continuing to pursue on his 
own behalf, she directed Johnson to consolidate in one document a list of the 
specific claims he wanted the Court to consider.  Johnson initially was given 
one month to comply and was granted several extensions of time thereafter.  
                                                 
1 Johnson v. State, 2002 WL 714520 (Del. Apr. 22, 2002). 
 
3
Despite being given multiple opportunities to clarify his claims, Johnson 
instead wrote to the Court indicating that he was having difficulty 
responding.  He asked the Commissioner to consider the matter on the 
papers already submitted. 
(4) 
In response, the State moved to dismiss Johnson’s motion for 
failure to respond to the Court’s directive.  The Commissioner granted 
Johnson an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss.  No 
response was filed.  Accordingly, the Commissioner filed a report on July 1, 
2008 recommending that the Johnson’s motion for postconviction relief, 
which had been filed in 2005, be dismissed for Johnson’s failure to 
prosecute.  The Superior Court adopted the Commissioner’s report and 
recommendation and dismissed Johnson’s motion.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should 
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision 
dated December 29, 2008. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in 
dismissing Johnson’s motion for postconviction relief, which had been filed 
three years earlier, for his failure to follow the Court’s directives and for 
failure to prosecute.  The Superior Court has the inherent power to maintain 
 
4
control of its docket to achieve the orderly disposition of its business.2  
Despite many opportunities to do so, Johnson failed to prosecute his 
postconviction motion in a diligent manner. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 See State v. Harris, 616 A.2d 288, 291 (Del. 1992).