Title: Dickerson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BYRON S. DICKERSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 563, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 90011926DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: October 7, 2010 
Decided: November 29, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of November 2010, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief1 and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Byron S. Dickerson, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s August 19, 2010 order adopting the August 2, 
2010 report of the Superior Court commissioner, which recommended that 
Dickerson’s second motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior 
                                                 
1 The appellant also filed a motion to amend his appendix to include three pages of trial 
transcript. 
 
2
Court Criminal Rule 61 be denied.2  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.3  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in June 1992, Dickerson and a co-
defendant, Meriya Baker, were found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 
Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the First Degree and Possession of 
a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony.  Dickerson received a life 
sentence, plus 20 years at Level V.  This Court affirmed Dickerson’s 
convictions on direct appeal.4  Dickerson filed his first postconviction 
motion in January 1995.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  Following 
remand and an evidentiary hearing, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s 
denial of the motion.5 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
postconviction motion, Dickerson claims that: a) his trial counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to request an accomplice liability instruction 
pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §274; b) his trial counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to object, under Bruton v. United States, 391 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
4 Dickerson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 353, 1992, Veasey, C.J. (Dec. 21, 1993). 
5 Dickerson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 176, 1996, Veasey, C.J. (Jan. 7, 1998) (en Banc). 
 
3
U.S. 123 (1968), to the reference in Baker’s counsel’s opening statement to 
Baker’s statement to police; c) the trial judge erred by failing to advise him 
of his rights under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §274; and d) the trial court erred 
by permitting his constitutional rights to be violated under Bruton. 
 
(4) 
Before considering the merits of claims made in motions for 
postconviction relief, the Superior Court must first address the procedural 
requirements of Rule 61.6  In this case, all of Dickerson’s claims are time-
barred under Rule 61(i)(1) because they were raised approximately 15 years 
after the judgment of conviction became final.7  Moreover, Dickerson’s 
claims are procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(2), which bars claims that 
could have been, but were not, asserted in previous postconviction motions.  
Finally, Dickerson’s attempt to use the provisions of Rule 61(i)(5) to 
overcome the time and procedural bars is unavailing.  There is no evidence 
of a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation under Bruton that 
undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.  Nor, contrary to 
Dickerson’s arguments, does Allen v. State, 970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009), 
                                                 
6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
7 At the time of Dickerson’s trial and direct appeal, Rule 61(i)(1) provided a 3-year time 
limitation. 
 
4
provide for a new substantive right regarding §274, recognized for the first 
time since Dickerson’s direct appeal.8   
 
(5) 
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.9 
 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
8 Richardson v. State, 3 A.3d 233 (Del. 2010) (holding that the Court’s decision in Allen 
did not articulate a new substantive right under §274 and, therefore, is not retroactively 
applicable). 
9 Dickerson’s motion to amend his appendix is hereby denied as moot.  Even if the 
motion had been granted, that would not have altered the outcome of these proceedings.