Title: Mathis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE MATHIS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 147, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0609019779 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 19, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 2, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of June 2010, 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, Tyrone Mathis, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s March 3, 2010 order adopting the Superior Court 
Commissioner’s February 15, 2010 report, which recommended that Mathis’ 
postconviction motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 be 
denied.1  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2 
the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest that the 
appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm.  
 
(2) 
In April 2007, Mathis was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree and two counts of 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  The 
evidence at trial was that, on September 27, 2006, Mathis, wielding a knife, 
separately threatened and demanded money from two employees of a Burger 
King restaurant in New Castle County, Delaware.  Mathis was sentenced to 
25 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 5 years for 
decreasing levels of supervision on each of his robbery convictions and to 2 
years at Level V incarceration on each of his weapon convictions.  Mathis’ 
convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.3 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his 
postconviction motion, Mathis claims that a) he was improperly charged 
with, and convicted of, two counts of first degree robbery and two weapon 
counts; and b) his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a 
timely motion to suppress the show-up identification of Mathis by the 
robbery victims.   
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Mathis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 516, 2007, Ridgely, J. (May 19, 2008). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
Rule 61 provides that a formerly adjudicated claim is thereafter 
barred unless reconsideration is warranted in the interest of justice4 or unless 
there has been a miscarriage of justice.5  The record reflects that Mathis’ 
first claim was formerly adjudicated in his direct appeal.  As such, it is 
procedurally barred unless Mathis can demonstrate that reconsideration of 
the claim is warranted in the interest of justice or that there has been a 
miscarriage of justice.  Because, under Delaware law, a defendant may be 
separately charged and punished for multiple counts of robbery where the 
evidence supports separate and distinct acts constituting the crime of 
robbery, without implicating double jeopardy,6 Mathis’ claim of error is 
without merit and he cannot avoid the procedural bar.  As such, the Superior 
Court properly denied Mathis’ first claim. 
 
(5) 
Mathis’ second claim is that his counsel was ineffective for 
failing to file a timely motion to suppress.7  The record reflects that Mathis’ 
counsel filed a motion to suppress Mathis’ out-of-court identification on the 
eve of trial and the Superior Court refused to consider it on the ground that 
there were no “exceptional circumstances” warranting its consideration.8  
                                                 
4 Rule 61(i)(4). 
5 Rule 61(i)(5). 
6 Washington v. State, 836 A.2d 485, 487-91 (Del. 2003). 
7 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
8 Pennewell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 410, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (Apr. 29, 2003) (citing 
Barnett v. State, 691 A.2d 614, 616 (Del. 1997)). 
 
4 
The record also reflects that Mathis claimed in his direct appeal that the 
Superior Court erred by failing to consider the motion to suppress.  In its 
Order affirming Mathis’ conviction, this Court held that, even assuming 
error on the part of the Superior Court in refusing to consider the motion to 
suppress, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the 
weight of the other evidence supporting Mathis’ conviction.  Under these 
circumstances, there is no basis for Mathis’ claim that his counsel’s error 
resulted in prejudice to him.9  As such, the Superior Court also properly 
denied Mathis’ second claim. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 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.10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
9 Skinner v. State, 607 A.2d 1170, 1173 (Del. 1992) (this Court’s rejection of the 
defendant’s substantive claims on direct appeal precluded a showing of prejudice on the 
defendant’s subsequent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). 
10 Although the Superior Court incorrectly held that Mathis’ postconviction motion was 
time-barred under Rule 61(i)(1), this Court may properly affirm the Superior Court’s  
judgment on alternative grounds.  Unitrin, Inc. v. Amer. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 
(Del. 1995).