Title: Brown v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES G. BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 457, 2003 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN88-06-0851 
§  Cr. ID 88004213DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 21, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 18, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, James Brown, pled guilty in 1988 to 
one count of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Brown to life imprisonment.  Brown unsuccessfully moved to 
withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he had received ineffective 
assistance from his trial counsel.  Since that time, Brown has filed several 
unsuccessful federal habeas corpus and state postconviction relief petitions 
asserting various arguments.  In June 2003, Brown filed several motions 
including a motion for postconviction relief, as well as a motion to recuse 
 
2
the judge to whom the postconviction motion was assigned.  The Superior 
Court denied all of Brown’s motions.  This appeal ensued. 
(2) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated 
August 18, 2003.  The Superior Court was not required to consider the 
merits of Brown’s claims, which were both time-barred and previously 
adjudicated.1  Moreover, we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial of 
Brown’s recusal motion.  Without more, a judge’s prior rulings in a case are 
not a sufficient basis for a recusal motion. 2  Accordingly, we find no abuse 
of discretion in the Superior Court’s summary disposition of Brown’s 
motion for postconviction relief without holding a hearing.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (4) (2003). 
2 See In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 
3 See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996).