Title: Hickman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LESTER HICKMAN,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 262, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0104000979 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 11, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 27, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2009, after careful consideration of the 
opening brief filed by the appellant, Lester Hickman, and the motion to 
affirm filed by the appellee, State of Delaware, we conclude that the 
judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the 
Court’s well-reasoned decision dated April 14, 2009.  The Superior Court 
did not err when concluding that Hickman’s fourth motion for 
postconviction relief was appropriately barred as procedurally defaulted1 
without exception.2  Moreover, the Court agrees with the State that 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).   
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).   
 
2 
Hickman’s fourth postconviction motion also is appropriately barred as 
untimely3 and repetitive4 without exception.5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).  Hickman’s convictions were final in 2002.  Hickman 
v. State, 2002 WL 1272154 (Del. Supr.).   
4 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2).  See Hickman v. State, 2004 WL 2291343 (Del. Supr.) 
(affirming denial of first postconviction motion); Hickman v. State, 2007 WL 1096884 
(Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of second postconviction motion); Hickman v. State, 2008 
WL 2080682 (Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of third postconviction motion). 
5 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).