Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Delaware v. Miller

Superior Court of Delaware

April 24, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff,
v.
SYLVESTER MILLER, Defendant.

          Submitted: January 24, 2018

          SYLVESTER MILLER, PRO SE.

          COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S FOURTH MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

         MANNING, COMMISSIONER:

         This 24th day of April 2018, upon consideration of petitioner Sylvester Miller's motion for postconviction relief (hereinafter "Motion"), I find and recommend the following:

         Facts and Procedural History

         Following a jury trial before the Honorable Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr., Miller was convicted of six counts of Rape First Degree and one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. On June 14, 2005, Miller was sentenced to, in total, 92 years of unsuspended time at Level Five. In his Motion, Miller indicated that he did not appeal his conviction to the Delaware Supreme Court. However, I discovered that Miller did, in fact, appeal his conviction and that it was affirmed on March 9, 2006.[1]

         The facts concerning Miller's case were recited in detail in the Supreme Court Opinion so I will not repeat them here; nor are they relevant. What is important for purposes of this report is that Miller was indicted on eight counts of Rape First Degree pursuant to 11 Del. C. 773(a), subsection six (6)- position of trust or authority-as that crime existed in 2004.[2]

         Since the time of his conviction, Miller has filed three motions for postconviction relief and one for correction of illegal sentence-all of which were denied by Judge Carpenter. In his now fourth Motion, Miller makes the following argument, quoted verbatim, for postconviction relief:

Ground One: From the inception the Court lacked jurisdiction to try or convict defendant. Sentence was imposed on defendant in an unconstitutional manner which violated both 5th and 14th Amendments constitutional rights under the law.

         Analysis

         Miller's Motion is controlled by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Before addressing the merits of a motion for postconviction relief, a reviewing court must first apply the procedural bars of Rule 61.[3]

         Rule 61(i)(1) requires a motion for postconviction to be filed not more than one year from the date the judgment of conviction becomes final. In this case, Miller's Motion is untimely as it was not filed within one year of the date his conviction was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court-i.e. March 6, 2006.

         Rule 61(i)(2) prohibits second or subsequent postconviction motions unless the motion satisfies subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of the Rule (i.e. the motion pleads with particularity that new evidence exists or that a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive applies to movant's case). The instant Motion is Miller's fourth motion for postconviction relief and neither of the exceptions under this subdivision has been alleged by Miller.

         What Miller does argue, however, is that his Motion is not procedurally barred from consideration on the merits under Rule 61(i)(5) because, the Court "lacked jurisdiction" to try his case in the first place.[4] Miller's argument, as best I can discern from his Motion, is that he was arrested, tried, and convicted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.