Title: Miller v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 448, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN E. MILLER, 
§ 
 
§  
No.  448, 2010 
 
Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§  
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
§  
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
§  
for New Castle County  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
    
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§  
Cr. ID No. 9712003463  
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2010 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 9, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of December 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In April 1998, the appellant, John E. Miller, pled guilty to 
Robbery in the First Degree and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.  In 
1999, Miller’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct 
appeal.1 
                                                 
1 Miller v. State, 1999 WL 636623 (Del. Supr.).   
 
2
 
(2) 
Over the past ten years, Miller has filed numerous motions and 
petitions for relief, all of which unsuccessfully challenged his 1998 guilty 
plea and/or sentence.  By Order dated May 5, 2009, when affirming the  
Superior Court's denial of his twelfth motion for postcoviction relief, this 
Court found that “Miller's excessive and repetitive filings constitute an abuse 
of the [judicial] processes.”2  The Court enjoined Miller from filing future 
claims and directed the Clerk that “no future filings by Miller in connection 
with his April 1998 guilty plea shall be docketed unless first reviewed and 
approved for filing by a Justice of this Court.”3 
 
(3) 
On July 19, 2010, Miller filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s July 6, 2010 denial of his fourteenth motion for postconviction 
relief.  Miller did not seek leave to file the appeal, and the Clerk 
inadvertently did not submit Miller's appeal for review and approval for 
filing as contemplated by the Court’s May 5, 2009 Order. 
 
(4) 
Miller now seeks an extension of time to file the opening brief 
and/or the appointment of counsel in this appeal.  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, opposes Miller’s requests, stating that “[n]o reason exists to 
expend more judicial resources to litigate Miller’s guilty plea to a 1997 bank 
                                                 
2 Miller v. State, 2009 WL 1204622 (Del. Supr.). 
3 Id. 
 
3
robbery.”  Moreover, the State asks the Court to “enforce its May 5, 2009 
order.”  The State’s request is well-taken. 
 
(5) 
Having conducted a preliminary review of Miller’s appeal, the 
Court has concluded that the appeal is based on a postconviction application 
that was both repetitious and frivolous; the grounds for relief have been 
previously raised and rejected by the Superior Court as well as by this 
Court.4  Applying the dictates of our Order of May 5, 2009, the Court has 
determined, nunc pro tunc, that the appeal is not approved for filing. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal papers are 
STRICKEN, and this matter is DISMISSED, sua sponte, pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(c).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                                 
4 Miller’s fourteenth postconviction motion asserted the following grounds for relief: 
“invalid/misleading indictment,” “inaccurate plea,” “insufficient plea colloquy,” and 
“ineffective assistance of counsel.”  In its summary dismissal order of July 6, 2010, the 
Superior Court concluded that the grounds for relief had been previously addressed and 
denied Miller’s fourteenth postconviction motion as “untimely, repetitive and having 
been previously adjudicated.”