Title: Hamilton v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN H.  HAMILTON
§
§
No.  495, 2003
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in and
v.
§
for Sussex County in S01-06- 
§
0374I & 0375I.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  0106017907
Submitted: March 26, 2004
Decided:
May 12, 2004
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 12th day of May 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief and appendix, the appellee’s motion to affirm, the appellant’s motion to
respond to the motion to affirm, and his “motion to modify requested relief,”
it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, John H. Hamilton, appeals from the Superior
Court’s order of September 5, 2003, that denied his second motion for
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The State
2
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the basis that the appeal
is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
(2)
In 2001, Hamilton was charged with Possession of Cocaine and
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  Hamilton entered into the Superior Court’s
Drug Court Diversion Program in July 2001 and was terminated from the
program in July 2002.  After a stipulated trial, Hamilton was found guilty of the
drug charges.  He was sentenced to a total of two years at Level V, suspended
for one year at a Level IV residential substance abuse treatment program that
was suspended, after successful completion of the program, for nine months of
Level III aftercare. 
(3)
On January 3, 2003, after a hearing, the Superior Court adjudged
Hamilton guilty of violation of probation (VOP).  The Superior Court sentenced
Hamilton, as corrected, to a total of two years at Level V imprisonment,
suspended upon successful completion of the Level V Key Short Term
Program, for a Level IV residential substance abuse treatment program,
suspended, upon successful completion of that program, for twelve months at
Level III aftercare.
1State v.  Hamilton, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  0106017907, Bradley, J. (Jan.  29,
2003); State v.  Hamilton, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  0106017907, Bradley, J.  (Mar. 6,
2003); State v.  Hamilton, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  0106017907, Bradley, J.  (April 3,
2003); State v.  Hamilton, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  0106017907, Bradley, J.  (April 29,
2003).; State v.  Hamilton, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  0106017907, Bradley, J.  (May 27,
2003).
3
(4)
Beginning in January 2003 and continuing though May 2003,
Hamilton filed several pro se motions for modification or review of sentence.
Each of Hamilton’s motions was denied by the Superior Court.1  
(5)
In July 2003, Hamilton filed a motion for postconviction relief.
By order dated August 6, 2003, the Superior Court denied the motion.
Hamilton did not appeal.  In August 2003, Hamilton filed a second
postconviction motion.  On September 5, 2003, the Superior Court denied
Hamilton’s second postconviction motion as procedurally barred.  This appeal
followed.
(6)
In his opening brief on appeal, Hamilton argues, as he did in his
first and second postconviction motions, that:  (a) he was denied the assistance
of appointed counsel to represent him at his entry into, and termination from,
the drug diversion program; (b) he was denied the assistance of counsel at his
VOP hearing; and (c) the Superior Court failed to credit him with ten days
2Supr.  Ct.  R.  8; Supr.  Ct.  R.  9(a).
4
served at Level IV in the Sussex County VOP unit and 142 days served at Level
IV in the Sussex County Work Release Unit. 
(7)
In addition to the claims presented in his opening brief, Hamilton
seeks leave to respond to the State’s motion to affirm.  In his “motion to modify
requested relief,” Hamilton asks this Court to consider documents and events
leading to and stemming from his recent termination from the Key Short Term
Program.  
(8)
The Court will deny Hamilton’s motion to respond to the motion
to affirm.  Supreme Court Rule 25(a) prohibits any “briefing, argument or
response” to a motion to affirm, unless requested by the Court.  The Court will
also deny Hamilton’s “motion to modify requested relief.”  When considering
an appeal, the Court generally is confined to the record made before, and
questions fairly presented to, the trial court.2 
(9)
Having considered Hamilton’s opening brief and the State’s
motion to affirm, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Hamilton’s second motion for postconviction relief
3See Bailey v.  State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del.  1991) (providing that the Superior
Court must apply the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before reaching the merits of the
claims).
4Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(2).
5Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(4).
6Id.
7Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(5).
5
on procedural grounds.3  Hamilton alleged, as he did in his first postconviction
motion, that he was entitled to 152 days of credit for time served at Level IV,
and that he was denied the assistance of counsel at his termination hearing and
at his VOP hearing.  Because the Superior Court previously considered those
claims, the claims are procedurally barred as repetitive4 and as formerly
adjudicated.5  Hamilton has offered no reason why reconsideration of either
claim is warranted in the interest of justice.6  Moreover, Hamilton has not
demonstrated that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or that there was a
miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation.7
  
(10)
It is manifest on the face of Hamilton’s opening brief that this
appeal is without merit.  The issues presented on appeal clearly are controlled
by settled Delaware law.  To the extent that judicial discretion is implicated,
clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
A.
Hamilton’s motion to respond to the State’s motion to affirm, and
his “motion to modify requested relief” are DENIED.
B.
The State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
C.
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Justice