State v. Hinson

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Martin

    I.D. 1702005493 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 28, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    standing" to seek postconviction relief because this Court had discharged him from probation); Summers v. State, 2003 WL 1524104, at *1 (Del. Mar. 20, 2003) (movant was no longer in custody as a result of the challenged conviction "and thus [wa]s not entitled to seek postconviction relief' (citation omitted)); Guinn v. State, 1993 WL 144874, at *1 (Del. Apr. 21, 1993) (finding that because movant "is no longer in custody" he "cannot seek postconviction relief from this sentence"); State v. Jackson, 2016 WL 7076990, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2016) (finding that as movant had no further obligation under the sentence, he was no longer "in custody" and lacked standing to pursue his then-pending Rule 61 petition); State v. Cammille, 2014 WL 2538491, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. June 3, 2014) (because movant was no longer "in custody . . . in a manner contemplated by Rule 61" he "lack[ed] standing under Rule 61 and [wa]s not entitled to seek postconviction relief' (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2006) (movant was "barred from relief pursuant to Rule 61 from her [challenged] conviction because she [wa]s not 'in custody or subject to future custody' for that challenged conviction" (citing pre-amendment Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61)). See Watson v. State, 2015 WL 1456771, at *2 (Del. Mar. 30, 2015) ("Generally, under Delaware law, once a criminal sentence is completed, any postconviction claim with respect to that conviction is moot because the defendant is no longer 'in custody under [the] sentence.'"

  2. State v. Martin

    I.D. No. 1702005493 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2021)

    Apr. 21, 1993); Jackson, 2016 WL 7076990, at *1 (finding that as movant had no further obligation under the sentence, he was no longer "in custody" and lacked standing to pursue his then-pending Rule 61 petition); State v. Cammille, 2014 WL 2538491 (Del. Super. Ct. June 3, 2014) (because movant was no longer "in custody . . . in a manner contemplated by Rule 61 . . . [he] lack[ed] standing under Rule 61 and [wa]s not entitled to seek postconviction relief.") (internal quotations omitted); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2006) (movant was "barred from relief pursuant to Rule 61 from her [challenged] conviction because she is not 'in custody or subject to future custody' for that challenged conviction."). See Pumphrey v. State, 2007 WL 3087405, at *1 (Del.

  3. State v. Jackson

    I.D. No. 1404012395 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that as movant had no further obligation under the sentence, he was no longer "in custody" and lacked standing to pursue his then-pending Rule 61 petition

    provisions lacks standing to do so and his claims are moot.See Steck v. State, 2015 WL 2357161, at *2 (Del. May 15, 2015) ("As a general matter, relief under Rule 61 is only available when the movant is in custody on the conviction that is the subject of the postconviction motion."); Ruiz v. State, 2011 WL 2651093, at *2 (Del. July 6, 2011) (finding movant "lack[ed] standing" to seek postconviction relief because this Court had discharged him from probation); Summers v. State, 2003 WL 1524104, at *1 (Del. Mar. 20, 2003) (movant was no longer in custody as a result of the challenged conviction "and thus is not entitled to seek postconviction relief."); Guinn v. State, 1993 WL 144874, at *1 (Del. Apr. 21, 1993); State v. Cammille, 2014 WL 2538491 (Del. Super. Ct. June 3, 2014) (because movant was no longer "in custody . . . in a manner contemplated by Rule 61 . . . [he] lack[ed] standing under Rule 61 and [wa]s not entitled to seek postconviction relief.") (internal quotations omitted); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2006) (movant was "barred from relief pursuant to Rule 61 from her [challenged] conviction because she is not 'in custody or subject to future custody' for that challenged conviction."). See Pumphrey v. State, 2007 WL 3087405, at *1 (Del. Oct. 23, 2007) (holding this Court "did not err in concluding that appellant lacked standing to pursue a motion for postconviction relief because appellant had completed his sentence and thus was no longer 'in custody or subject to future custody' under the sentence for which postconviction relief was sought."

  4. State v. Ryle

    Cr. ID No. 1104016682 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 22, 2016)

    Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990); Paul v. State, 2011 WL 3585623 (Del. Aug. 15, 2011), at *1 ("Delaware law provides that the Superior Court must first consider whether the defendant has satisfied the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before considering the merits of his postconviction motion." State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031 (Del. Super. Ct., Feb. 10, 2006), at *2 ("All courts in Delaware that have considered whether postconviction relief under Rule 61 is potentially available to a person who is not "in custody or subject to future custody" for the challenged sentence have agreed that such relief under Rule 61 is not available.") Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990) (affirming dismissal of motion for postconviction relief as untimely).

  5. State v. Cammille

    I.D. No. 9410010322 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 3, 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Dismissing defendant's motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61 because he was discharged from probation, he satisfied his financial obligations, and the case was closed

    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1). State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 10, 2006). See also Cammile v. State, 984 A.2d 123, 2009 WL 3367065, at *1 (Del. Oct. 20, 2009) (ORDER) ("...Cammile is neither in custody nor subject to future custody on his 1996 conviction.

  6. State v. Crisco

    I.D. No. 0607002649 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 3, 2014)

    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1). State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 10, 2006). See also Cammile v. State, 984 A.2d 123, 2009 WL 3367065, at *1 (Del. Oct. 20, 2009) (ORDER) ("...Cammile is neither in custody nor subject to future custody on his 1996 conviction.

  7. State v. Johnson

    Cr. ID No. 9709002535 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2013)

    Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(a)(1); Ruiz v. State, 2008 WL 1961187, at *2 (Del. 2008)(a person loses standing to seek postconviction relief under Rule 61 where the defendant is not in custody or subject to future custody for the underlying offense or challenged sentence.); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del.Super.)("All courts in Delaware that have considered whether postconviction relief under Rule 61 is potentially available to a person who is not 'in custody or subject to future custody' for the challenged sentence have agreed that such relief under Rule 61 is not available."). State v. Johnson, 2009 WL 3069583, at *1 (Del.Super.), aff'd, 2009 WL 4639333 (Del.).

  8. State v. Crawford

    Cr. ID No. 9704012213 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 2012)

    Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(a)(1); Ruiz v. State, 2008 WL 1961187, at *2 (Del. 2008)(a person loses standing to seek postconviction relief under Rule 61 where the defendant is not in custody or subject to future custody for the underlying offense or challenged sentence.); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del.Super.)("All courts in Delaware that have considered whether postconviction relief under Rule 61 is potentially available to a person who is not 'in custody or subject to future custody' for the challenged sentence have agreed that such relief under Rule 61 is not available.") Id.

  9. STATE v. HELM

    Cr. ID. No. 30302183DI (Del. Super. Ct. May. 20, 2010)

    Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(a)(1); Ruiz v. State, 2008 WL 1961187, at *2 (Del. 2008) (a person loses standing to seek postconviction relief under Rule 61 where the defendant is not in custody or subject to future custody for the underlying offense or challenged sentence.); State v. Hinson, 2006 WL 337031, at *2 (Del.Super.)("All courts in Delaware that have considered whether postconviction relief under Rule 61 is potentially available to a person who is not `in custody or subject to future custody' for the challenged sentence have agreed that such relief under Rule 61 is not available.")Id.