Title: Wilson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 570, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
REGINALD WILSON,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 570, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 03M-07-046 
                      
 
Submitted: March 12, 2004  
   Decided: May 12, 2004    
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of May 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Reginald Wilson, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 28, 2003 order denying his petition for return of 
property.  The respondent-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Wilson’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-2-
 
(2) 
In 2002, police officers from the City of Wilmington Police 
Department placed an individual named Gregory Johnson under surveillance in 
connection with an investigation of illegal drug activity.  Johnson was observed 
entering a 1992 Cadillac automobile on several occasions during the surveillance 
period.  In August 2002, the police arrested Johnson and seized approximately 
$600 in cash, 11.9 grams of cocaine and the 1992 Cadillac automobile.  Although 
Johnson told the police the automobile belonged to him, motor vehicle records 
reflected that the registered owner was Reginald Wilson.   
 
(3) 
In October 2002, an attorney from the Delaware Department of 
Justice sent a forfeiture notice to Wilson stating that a forfeiture proceeding would 
be initiated with respect to the automobile and advising Wilson of the time 
deadline to contest the forfeiture.2  The notice was returned as undeliverable.  On 
October 16, 2002, an additional notice was published in the Wilmington News 
Journal reflecting the State’s intent to seek forfeiture of the automobile.3     
 
(4) 
On June 26, 2003, the Department of Justice sent Wilson’s attorney a 
letter stating that, if Wilson wanted to contest the forfeiture, he would be afforded 
an additional two weeks to file his petition.   Wilson did not file his pro se petition 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4784(a) (4) (1994 & supp. 2002); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 71.3(a). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4784(j). 
 
 
-3-
for return of the automobile until July 23, 2003.4  The State moved to dismiss the 
petition as untimely.  On October 28, 2003, the Superior Court granted the State’s 
motion and dismissed Wilson’s petition. 
 
(5) 
Under the forfeiture statute and the Superior Court Rules, a petition 
for return of property must be filed within 45 days of the later of the mailing of the 
forfeiture notice or the date of publication of the notice.5  Here, the petition had to 
be filed within 45 days of the publication date of October 16, 2002.  Because 
Wilson’s petition was not filed until July 23, 2003, it clearly was untimely under 
the Rule.  The Superior Court, thus, correctly dismissed the petition.6 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Wilson’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issue presented on appeal is controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion.   
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4784(j); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 71.3(c). 
5 Id.   
6 Wilson also argues that the State never proved that his automobile was used for illegal 
drug activity.  Wilson did not make that argument to the Superior Court in the first instance and 
we decline to address it in this appeal.  Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
 
 
-4-
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice