Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
State v. Miller
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
July 28, 2014
STATE OF DELAWARE,
SYLVESTER MILLER Defendant.
Submitted: June 25, 2014
Kevin Carroll, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.
Sylvester Miller, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 1181 Paddock Road, Smyrna, DE 19977. Pro Se Defendant.
WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, JR. JUDGE.
On this 28th day of July 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:
1. On April 2, 2014, Sylvester Miller ("Miller") filed a Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief, his third, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). In this Motion, Miller raises the following grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) Fourteenth Amendment violations of due process; (3) insufficiency of evidence for a conviction of rape; and (4) denial of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to appeal pro se. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Third Motion for Postconviction Relief ("Rule 61 Motion") is DENIED.
2. Following a jury trial, Miller was found guilty on March 28, 2005 of six (6) counts of Rape First Degree and one (1) count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. On June 17, 2005, Miller was sentenced to a mandatory term of fifteen (15) years imprisonment for each count of Rape, and two (2) years imprisonment followed by a period of probation supervision for the count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child.
3. Two (2) days prior to Miller's sentencing, Miller filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, requesting the Court to appoint different counsel to pursue his appeal. This Court issued a letter on July 26, 2005, denying Miller's request for appointed counsel and explaining that any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel could not be addressed on direct appeal of his conviction. Miller's conviction and sentence were then affirmed on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court in March 2006. Subsequently, Miller filed his first Rule 61 Motion on July 11, 2006.
4. On January 31, 2007, Miller again filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, which this Court denied due to Miller's failure to set forth good cause in support of his request. On October 29, 2007, Miller's first Rule 61 Motion was denied by this Court. Additionally, on November 6, 2007, this Court denied Miller's Motion to Dismiss the indictment. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment on March 28, 2008.
5. On April 1, 2013, nearly eight (8) years after his conviction, Miller filed his second Rule 61 Motion, which was denied by this Court on July 25, 2013. Such denial was then affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court on October 23, 2013.
6. Defendant filed his third Rule 61 Motion on April 2, 2014, which was amended on June 25, 2014, and is now before the Court. Prior to addressing the merits of any postconviction claim, the Court must determine whether the procedural requirements of Rule 61 have been met. Specifically, any ground for relief raised by the Defendant that was not raised at trial or on direct appeal is procedurally barred, unless the Defendant shows both cause for relief and prejudice from a violation of his rights. Additionally, any grounds for relief previously adjudicated, including those adjudicated in "the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a postconviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, " are barred unless "reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice."
A. Procedurally Barred Claims
7. In his Motion, Miller alleges: (1) denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the presentation and coaching of a witness who lacked mental capacity; (2) denial of due process because the court allowed the jury to review a video of Miller's post-arrest, unsworn statements (which he also alleges was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify); (3)fundamental miscarriage of justice because his conviction was based solely on the victim's testimony without any physical evidence to corroborate her claims; (4)denial of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to proceed pro se on direct appeal; (5) denial of Fifth Amendment Rights due to a language barrier which made Miller's waiver of his Miranda rights prior to his post-arrest statements invalid; (6) ineffective assistance of counsel (which will be addressed separately below); and (7) alleged Brady violations (which will also be addressed separately below).
8. Miller's claims are similar—if not identical—to the claims he raised in his first and second Rule 61 Motions. The Court again finds that these claims are procedurally barred because they were either not raised on direct appeal or were previously adjudicated on Miller's first and second Rule 61 Motions. Despite this procedural bar, the Court has again reviewed ...
Buy This Entire Record For