Opinion ID: 2268164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Law of the Case Exceptions

Text: The State misconstrues the law of the case doctrine. The law of the case doctrine is not intended to preserve error or injustice: [T]he law of the case doctrine is not inflexible in that, unlike res judicata, it is not an absolute bar to reconsideration of a prior decision that is clearly wrong, produces an injustice or should be revisited because of changed circumstances. See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del.1998); Zirn v. VLI Corp., 681 A.2d 1050, 1062 n. 7 (Del.1996). [15] This Court has recently observed that: In our view, Rule 61(i)(4)'s bar on previously litigated claims is based on the law of the case doctrine. In determining the scope of the interest of justice exception, we recognize two exceptions to the law of the case doctrine. First, the doctrine does not apply when the previous ruling was clearly in error or there has been an important change in circumstances, in particular, the factual basis for issues previously posed. See Kenton v. Kenton, 571 A.2d 778, 784 (Del.1990) (The `law of the case' is established when a specific legal principle is applied to an issue presented by facts which remain constant throughout the subsequent course of the same litigation.). Second, the equitable concern of preventing injustice may trump the law of the case doctrine. See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del.1998). [16] The law of the case doctrine does not preclude this Court or the Superior Court from reexamining the prior rulings in this case when the factual premises of those prior rulings are demonstrated to have been mistaken. In fact, the record reflects that this Court concluded that this matter should be remanded to the Superior Court, on an expedited basis, for reconsideration of its order denying Hamilton's petition for postconviction relief.... [17] This appeal was specifically remanded to the Superior Court to reconstruct, if possible, the record of Hamilton's resentencing proceedings. [18] In its initial decision denying Hamilton's motion for relief before remand, the Superior Court had rejected Hamilton's contentions that the sentences imposed by Judge Martin on October 13, 1988 were concurrent and should commence on January 24, 1977. In rejecting Hamilton's contentions, the Superior Court essentially relied on Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901(d), and found that concurrent sentencing was not permitted under Delaware law. Other factors also contributed to the original misunderstanding of Hamilton's contentions. Hamilton's contention that his resentencing actually occurred on October 13, 1988, not September 2, 1988 as some docket entries suggested, was not accepted until an attorney from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel actually inquired into the records in the Prothonotary Office and confirmed Hamilton's contention that his resentencing occurred on October 13, rather than September 2, 1988. Hamilton, a pro se prisoner who could not examine the court file, had previously been unable to obtain requested court documentation in presenting his contentions. Judge Martin's originally misconstrued intent that was reflected in the originally misdated sentencing order was later verified by the contemporaneous sentencing worksheets and other records discovered by the prosecutor. Despite the court reporter's lost notes of the original sentencing hearing on October 13, 1988, the Superior Court on remand reconstructed from all available documentation the terms of Hamilton's October 13 resentencing. On reconsideration after remand and on further review of the record, the Superior Court recognized that the robbery and conspiracy sentences in question, although originally imposed in 1977 and reimposed by Judge Martin on October 13, 1988, had been imposed for offenses that actually occurred in 1975 when concurrent sentencing was permitted under Delaware law. Under this circumstance, these robbery and conspiracy sentences could not only have legally been imposed concurrently to each other but also concurrently to the 1976 sentences imposed by Judges Stiftel and Longobardi in 1976, amounting to a cumulative nine years, because those offenses had also occurred before concurrent sentencing was prohibited in 1976. Therefore, on October 13, 1988, when Judge Martin reimposed these sentences to commence on January 24, 1977, the robbery and conspiracy sentences were being reimposed concurrent to the other cumulative nine-year sentences that had been imposed in 1976. As for the excerpt in the 1988 sentencing form order to the effect that [i]f the defendant is presently serving another sentence, this sentence shall begin at the expiration of such other sentence being served, this sentencing form excerpt not only facially complied with the post-1976 status of the law generally forbidding concurrent sentencing, but also correctly took into account that the sentences reimposed by Judge Martin in 1988 must be served consecutively to the prison contraband and conspiracy sentences that had been imposed the previous year by Judge Balick and that Hamilton was then presently serving in 1988. This was in contrast to the cumulative nine-year sentences that had been imposed by Judges Stiftel and Longobardi in 1976 which had expired in 1985 and that Hamilton was no longer presently serving when he was resentenced by Judge Martin in 1988. As the Superior Court correctly recognized in its more recent findings on remand after reconsideration of the record: [I]t appears [from] the record and [from the] position [] of the parties that the sentences imposed by Judge Martin on October 13, 1988 in IN76-08-0906 and IN76-08-0907, were to run concurrently. Moreover, the effective date of the sentence that must be used by the Department of Corrections is January 24, 1977. That is the effective date Judge Martin specifically directed that his sentences begin to run. Exactly why he chose that date is not known at this time, but it is a certainty.