Title: Epperson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN EPPERSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 573, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9408009291 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 14, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 17, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of November 2014, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s request for leave to file an appeal from the Superior Court’s 
denial of his twentieth motion for postconviction relief and his response to 
the Court’s rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kevin Epperson, was convicted by a Superior 
Court jury in 1996 of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual 
Contact in the First Degree.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 
serve fifty-two years in prison followed by a period of probation.  His 
convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. 
 
2 
 
(2) 
In 2006, following his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial 
of his eighth postconviction motion, this Court noted that Epperson’s 
repetitive filings were frivolous and constituted an abuse of the judicial 
process.  We, therefore, enjoined Epperson from filing any future claims in 
this Court without first obtaining leave of the Court and filing a motion to 
proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803.   
 
(3) 
Epperson filed his current request seeking leave to appeal from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his twentieth postconviction motion.  
Epperson contends that his twentieth petition, which challenged the legality 
of the indictment against him, raises a constitutional issue that has never 
been addressed before by any court and is not procedurally barred. 
 
(4) 
Having conducted a preliminary review of Epperson’s appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 21, 2014 order, we conclude that his 
appeal is not approved for filing.  This is Epperson’s twentieth Rule 61 
petition.  We have now invested considerable time detailing our reasons why 
his previous petitions were procedurally barred.  We will not continue to 
invest scarce judicial resources to address his untimely and repetitive claims.  
We encourage Epperson to be mindful of Rule 61(j) before filing any further 
frivolous petitions in the Superior Court. 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Epperson’s appeal 
papers are STRICKEN and this matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice