Title: Matter of Salah a/k/a Cecil Hall
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 63, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE   
' 
 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF   
' 
No. 63, 2007 
CERTIORARI BY SALAH a/k/a 
' 
Cr. ID No. 0506014139 
CECIL HALL 
 
 
 
' 
 
 
Submitted: March 1, 2007 
Decided: 
May 17, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.  
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of May 2007, upon consideration of the petition of 
Cecil Hall for a writ of certiorari and the State=s answer and motion to 
dismiss,1 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In August 2006, Cecil Hall pleaded guilty to two counts of 
Burglary in the Third Degree.  At sentencing in December 2006, the 
Superior Court declared Hall to be a habitual offender pursuant to title 
11, section 4214(a) of the Delaware Code and sentenced him to  a total 
of twelve years of imprisonment suspended after ten years for a total of 
two years at Levels IV and III.2  Hall filed an appeal.3   
                                                 
1The Court has not considered Hall=s unsolicited responses to the State=s answer and 
motion to dismiss.  See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(ii) (2007) (prohibiting further submissions 
unless directed by the Court). 
2State v. Hall, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0506014139, (Dec. 1, 2006) (order of 
sentence). 
3Id., appeal docketed, No. 649, 2006 (Del. Supr. Dec. 12, 2006).  
 
 
2 
(2) 
In his petition for a writ of certiorari, Hall contends that title 
11, section 4214(a) is unconstitutionally vague and otherwise 
inapplicable as to him and other chemically dependent criminal 
defendants.  Hall seeks an order vacating both the December 1, 2006 
sentence and his status as a habitual offender.  Hall also seeks an 
evidentiary hearing to present expert testimony on Arecent advances in 
medical knowledge pertaining to chemical dependency.@  
(3) 
Under Delaware law, a petition for a writ of certiorari is 
available to challenge a final order of a trial court Ain the absence of the 
right of appeal or other adequate remedy.@4   AWhere these threshold 
requirements are not met, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the 
petitioner=s claims.@5   
                                                 
4See In re Hall, 1994 WL 35372 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing certiorari petition for lack 
of jurisdiction (citing Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431 (Del. 1997))). 
5In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
 
 
3 
(4) 
In this case, Hall has not established that he is without a 
remedy for his claims. Hall can challenge the constitutionality and 
application of section 4214(a) as part of his current direct appeal.6     
                                                 
6See, e.g., Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164 (Del. 1988) (considering on direct appeal 
whether application of habitual offender statute and imposition of enhanced penalty was 
constitutionally permissible).  The Court notes that Hall=s opening brief on appeal is due to 
be filed no later than June 15, 2007.  See Hall v. State, No. 649, 2006 (Del. Supr. April 17, 
2007) (order establishing deadline for opening brief). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State=s motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED.  Hall=s petition for a writ of certiorari is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice