Title: Haskins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 550, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARL HASKINS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 550, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 86012667DI (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 9, 2018 
Decided: 
December 4, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 29, 2018, the appellant, Carl Haskins, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated October 11, 2018, denying his motion for 
correction of illegal sentence.  In the motion, Haskins challenged his 1986 
indictment for rape.  This Court has previously held that no filings relating to 
Haskins’ conviction or sentencing will be docketed unless a Justice first determines 
that the proposed application is neither repetitious nor frivolous.1  On October 30, 
                                               
 
1 In re Haskins, 1995 WL 13441, at *1 (Del. Jan. 11, 1995) (dismissing petition challenging 
allegedly defective indictment as frivolous and ordering that no further filings by Haskins in regard 
 
2 
2018, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Haskins to show cause why 
this appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous and repetitive under this Court’s 
previous orders.   
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Haskins argues that the 
indictment was defective.  Haskins’ challenges to his indictment are repetitious and 
frivolous.2  He has also failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis by November 14, 2018 as directed by the Senior Court Clerk.  Under 
these circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                               
 
to his conviction or sentencing for Rape in the Second Degree would be docketed without a Justice 
of the Court first determining that the proposed application was neither repetitious nor frivolous). 
2 See, e.g., Haskins v. Kay, 2008 WL 5227187, at *2 (Del. Dec. 16, 2008) (recognizing that Haskins 
had challenged the validity of the indictment numerous times and “despite his many attempts to 
refine or restate the claim, he cannot relitigate this issue, which already has been decided against 
him”); In re Haskins, 1995 WL 13441, at *1 (dismissing petition challenging allegedly defective 
indictment as frivolous because Haskins had pled guilty and therefore waived any alleged defects 
in the indictment). 
 . 
 
3