Title: Cammile v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN I. CAMMILE, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 457, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 9506011640 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 1, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 20, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of October 2009, 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 appellant, Brian I. Cammile, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s August 3, 2009 denial of his motion for postconviction 
relief.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Cammile’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
2
 
(2) 
In September 1996, Cammile pled guilty to Attempted Robbery 
in the Second Degree (“1996 conviction”).  Cammile was sentenced to four 
years imprisonment suspended for four years at Level IV home confinement 
suspended after six months for three and one-half years of probation.  In 
1997 and 1998, Cammile was adjudged guilty of violation of probation 
(VOP) and was resentenced.  In January 2000, Cammile again was adjudged 
guilty of VOP, and his probation was continued.  Finally, in August 2000, 
after his fourth VOP hearing, Cammile was discharged from probation as 
unimproved. 
 
(3) 
In March 2009, Cammile filed a motion for postconviction 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”).  Cammile 
challenged his 1996 conviction on the bases that his guilty plea was 
involuntary and his counsel was ineffective.   
 
(4) 
By report and recommendation dated June 18, 2009, a 
Commissioner recommended that Cammile’s postconviction motion should 
be denied as moot.  By order dated August 3, 2009, the Superior Court 
adopted the Commissioner’s report and recommendation and denied 
Cammile’s motion.  This appeal followed. 
 
(5) 
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal, we 
conclude that the denial of postconviction relief should be affirmed on the 
 
3
basis of the Superior Court’s August 3, 2009 order that adopted the 
Commissioner’s report and recommendation.  Rule 61 “governs the 
procedure on an application by a person in custody or subject to future 
custody under a sentence of [the Superior Court] seeking to set aside a 
judgment of conviction.”2  In this case, Cammile is neither in custody nor 
subject to future custody on his 1996 conviction.  As a result, Cammile lacks 
standing to seek relief under Rule 61, and the Superior Court was correct in 
concluding that his postconviction motion was moot.3 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Cammile’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  The issues on appeal are clearly controlled by 
settled Delaware law.  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/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1). 
3 Ruiz v. State, 2008 WL 1961187 (Del. Supr.).