WARD T. EVANS, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: April 7, 2017
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.
COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR. JUSTICE
11th day of April 2017, it appears to the Court
Following his 1982 conviction in the Superior Court on one
count of Rape in the First Degree, the appellant, Ward T.
Evans, was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility
of parole. In 1984, the conviction and sentence were affirmed
on direct appeal. Since then, Evans has challenged his
conviction and sentence in nearly two dozen unsuccessful
state and federal court applications.
Last year, Evans appealed the Superior Court's dismissal
of his petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought good
time credits applied to his life sentence, and his immediate
release from custody. By Order dated August 31, 2016, we
concluded that the appeal was frivolous and affirmed the
Superior Court's dismissal of the petition.
Undaunted, Evans then filed a motion for correction of
sentence, which sought his immediate release from custody on
the basis that his life sentence is illegal because it does
not specify an ending date as required by statute. This
appeal is from the Superior Court's denial of that
an Order issued more than a quarter century ago, this Court
enjoined Evans from filing "further postconviction
applications . . . in regard to his conviction and/or
sentencing . . . in the Delaware Supreme Court without a
Justice of this Court first determining that the proposed
application is neither repetitious nor
frivolous." Having now applied the dictates of that
Order and conducted a preliminary review of this appeal, the
Court concludes that the appeal is legally frivolous and is
not approved for filing. The claim underlying the appeal-that a
life sentence is illegal because it does not specify an
ending date-has been raised and rejected in other appeals and
is indisputably without merit.
Evans' filing of a frivolous appeal constitutes an abuse
of the judicial process. In the future, unless leave is
granted by the Court, Evans is enjoined from proceeding on
any claim related to his conviction and sentence.
Moreover, any request by Evans to invoke the Court's
appellate or original jurisdiction in any matter concerning
his conviction and sentence must be accompanied by a sworn
affidavit containing the certifications required by 10
Del. C. § 8803(e).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Evans' appeal papers are
STRICKEN, and this matter is summarily DISMISSED. Evans is
ENJOINED under 10 Del. C. § 8803 and this Order
from filing a future notice of appeal or extraordinary writ
concerning his conviction and sentence without first
obtaining the Court's permission.
Evans v. State, 1984 WL
180811 (Del. June 21, ...