Title: Roten v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BEN ROTEN,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 589, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0907011738 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                             Submitted:  May 23, 20131 
 
 
 
 
        Decided:  June 21, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of June 2013, 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, Ben Roten, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 9, 2012 order denying his motion to “reopen” the 
proceedings on his Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 motion for 
postconviction relief and his motion for the appointment of counsel.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
                                                 
1 This appeal was stayed pending the Court’s decision in Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 
350, 2012, Jacobs, J. (May 23, 2013). 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in January 2010, Roten was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Assault in a Detention Facility.  He 
was sentenced as a habitual offender3 to twenty-five years of Level V 
incarceration, to be followed by six months of Level IV work release.  
Roten’s convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.4  
Following his conviction, Roten filed a motion for modification of sentence, 
which was denied by the Superior Court.   
 
(3) 
On February 9, 2011, Roten filed a motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Rule 61.  In his motion, Roten claimed that a) his letter to 
his girlfriend admitting to the assault on a fellow inmate should not have 
been admitted into evidence at his trial; b) it was error for the judge to deny 
his motion to inform the jury that the inmate he assaulted had been convicted 
of rape; and c) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not 
objecting to those rulings by the judge.  This Court affirmed the Superior 
Court’s denial of Roten’s postconviction motion, finding no merit to Roten’s 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(a). 
4 Roten v. State, Del. Supr., No. 108, 2010, Berger, J. (Oct. 4, 2010). 
 
3
claims.5  The record reflects that Roten did not file a motion for the 
appointment of counsel in connection with his postconviction motion.   
 
(4) 
Roten subsequently filed a motion for correction of an illegal 
sentence and/or for a new trial.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s 
denial of that motion.6  Roten then filed a supplemental motion for a new 
trial.  This Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of that motion.7 
 
(5) 
In its decision denying Roten’s most recent motion, which 
Roten characterized as a motion to “reopen” the proceedings on his 2011 
postconviction motion, the Superior Court, applying Superior Court Civil 
Rule 59(e) regarding motions for reargument, denied the motion as 
untimely.  The Superior Court also denied Roten’s motion for the 
appointment of counsel.  
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Roten claims that a) the Superior Court abused 
its discretion when it denied his motions; and b) the Superior Court erred by 
relying on Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) rather than Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61(i) (1) in rendering its decision. 
 
(7) 
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions 
carefully and conclude that, in the absence of any procedure under Rule 61 
                                                 
5 Roten v. State, Del. Supr., No. 437, 2011, Berger, J. (Nov. 8, 2011).  The record 
reflected that Roten’s counsel had, in fact, objected to both of the judge’s rulings.   
6 Roten v. State, Del. Supr., No. 261, 2012, Steele, C.J. (July 30, 2012). 
7 Roten v. State, Del. Supr., No. 262, 2012, Jacobs, J. (Nov. 16, 2012). 
 
4
for the “reopening” of a postconviction proceeding, the Superior Court 
properly relied on Rule 59 in denying Roten’s motion.8  Moreover, because 
Rule 61 does not contain a procedure for the “reopening” of a postconviction 
proceeding, Roten was not entitled to the appointment of counsel under Rule 
61.  As such, we find no error on the part of the Superior Court in denying 
Roten’s request for the appointment of counsel.  If Roten wishes his claims 
to be considered, he must file a new motion for postconviction relief in the 
Superior Court.   
 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of the 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, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
      
                                                 
8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d) (“In all cases not provided for by rule or administrative order, 
the court shall regulate its practice in accordance with the applicable Superior Court civil 
rule . . . .”)