Title: Perkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEITH PERKINS,                      
           
Defendant Below-Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below-Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 162, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 0005003075  
                       
 
 
Submitted: June 17, 2004  
   Decided: August 25, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of August 2004, 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, Keith Perkins, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s April 12, 2004 order denying his motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it  
 
 
 
-2-
 
is manifest on the face of Perkins’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  
We agree. 
 
(2) 
In June 2002, a Superior Court jury found Perkins guilty of Possession 
With Intent to Deliver Cocaine and Possession of Cocaine Within 1000 Feet of a 
School.  He was sentenced to a total of 14 years incarceration at Level V, to be 
suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  Perkins’ convictions 
and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Perkins claims that: a) the evidence presented at trial 
was insufficient to support his convictions; and b) his trial counsel should have 
“made the State prove the elements of the charges.”   
 
(4) 
Perkins’ claim of insufficiency of the evidence is unavailing.  The 
Superior Court correctly ruled that because this claim was decided previously in 
Perkins’ direct appeal, it could not be relitigated in postconviction proceedings.3   
 
(5) 
Perkins’ second claim also fails because Perkins provides no facts 
demonstrating that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of 
reasonableness and that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Perkins v. State, Del. Supr., No. 464, 2002, Steele, J. (Feb. 13, 2003). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4).  
 
 
 
-3-
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 
different.4  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Perkins’ opening brief that his 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, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).