Title: Dawkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE E. DAWKINS, JR., 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 304, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0703017301 
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 25, 2015 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 20, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of October 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief,1 the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, George Dawkins, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order, dated May 19, 2015, denying his motion seeking 
modification of his 2007 sentence.  The State filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Dawkins’ 
opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.  
                                                 
1 Along with his opening brief, Dawkins also filed a motion for the appointment of 
counsel.  That motion is denied. 
 
2 
(2) 
Dawkins pled guilty in 2007 to one count of Rape in the First 
Degree and one count of Rape in the Third Degree.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Dawkins to a total period of fifty years at Level V imprisonment, 
to be suspended after serving thirty years in prison for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Dawkins did not file a direct appeal.  Since 2007, Dawkins has 
filed several unsuccessful motions requesting modification of his sentence.  
On May 15, 2015, Dawkins filed another motion requesting that his 
sentences be modified to run concurrently instead of consecutively.2  On 
May 19, 2015, the Superior Court denied Dawkins’ motion on the ground 
that his sentence is appropriate for all of the reasons stated at his sentencing 
hearing.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
Dawkins’ sole argument on appeal is that the trial judge abused 
his discretion and acted in a biased way when he denied Dawkins’ motion 
before it was even docketed.  The factual basis for Dawkins’ assertion is 
belied by the record, which reflects that Dawkins’ motion was filed on May 
15, 2015 and was denied by the trial judge four days later.  The Superior 
Court had considered and denied similar motions filed by Dawkins.  Under 
the circumstances, we find no support for Dawkins’ argument that the 
                                                 
2 On July 9, 2014, the General Assembly amended 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) to give the 
sentencing judge discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. 
 
3 
Superior Court’s prompt denial of his motion reflected any bias by the trial 
judge.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 See Pinkston v. State, 2014 WL 1657769 (Del. Apr. 22, 2014) (denial of defendant’s 
motion alone was not proof of judicial bias).