Title: Allen v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
VINCENT ALLEN,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 366, 2003 
 
   Court Below – Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 83005216DI
 
Submitted:  November 19, 2003 
   Decided:  January 20, 2004  
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of January 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, Vincent Allen, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s July 7, 2003 order denying his request for relief from a previous 
Superior Court order that refused his request for transcripts.  The plaintiff-appellee, 
the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on 
 
 
-2-
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Allen’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit. 1  We agree and affirm.     
 
(2) 
In 1984, Allen was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of multiple 
counts of Burglary, Theft and Forgery (I.D. No. 83005216DI).  On July 25, 1984, 
Allen was declared an habitual offender2 and subsequently was sentenced to a total 
of 15 years incarceration at Level V. 3  This Court affirmed Allen’s convictions and 
sentences.4   
 
(3) 
In June 2002, Allen filed a motion for transcripts of his habitual 
offender and sentencing hearings so that he might file a habeas corpus petition.  
The Superior Court denied the motion.  Allen’s subsequent appeal was dismissed 
as interlocutory by this Court.5  Allen then moved the Superior Court under 
Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) for relief from its order denying his motion for 
transcripts.  The Superior Court denied the motion on the ground that, as a civil 
motion filed in a criminal case, it was not properly before the court.  
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 25(a). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a) (2001). 
3 The record also reflects that there were additional charges brought against Allen under 
I.D. Nos. 83005859DI and 84001230DI and that he served consecutive Level V sentences on 
multiple convictions until 2003, when he finished his Level V time and began serving the Level 
IV portion of his sentences at Crest North Outreach Center.      
4 Allen v. State, No. 250, 1984 (Del. Apr. 8, 1985) (affirmed convictions of burglary, theft 
and forgery); Allen v. State, No. 249, 1984 (Del. Apr. 10, 1985) (affirmed convictions of robbery 
and conspiracy). 
5 Allen v. State, No. 663, 2002 (Del. Dec. 31, 2002). 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Allen claims that: a) his habitual offender sentence 
violates the holding of the United States Supreme Court enunciated in Apprendi v. 
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and b) he had an insufficient number of 
convictions to qualify as an habitual offender. 
 
(5) 
Allen’s claims were not presented to the Superior Court in the first 
instance and, therefore, we may not consider them in this appeal. 6  Moreover, as a 
substantive matter, the Superior Court’s decision not to reopen its judgment in 
Allen’s criminal case pursuant to Rule 60(b), a rule of civil procedure, was proper.   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Allen’s 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, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion.7 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
7 The record reflects that, in September 1984, the Superior Court granted a motion by 
Allen for a copy of the transcript of his habitual offender hearing.  Thus, it appears that Allen 
already has received a copy of the transcript he seeks here.  However, we conclude that the 
interests of justice and efficiency will best be served by simply sending Allen another copy of the 
transcript, which is contained in the record before us, along with a copy of this Order.    
 
 
 
-4-
 
 
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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice