Summary
holding that the Superior Court did not err in denying defendant's motion under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) for relief from the denial of his motion for transcripts in a criminal case
Summary of this case from Hall v. StateOpinion
No. 366, 2003.
Submitted: November 19, 2003.
Decided: January 20, 2004.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 83005216DI.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 20th day of January 2004, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Vincent Allen, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's July 7, 2003 order denying his request for relief from a previous Superior Court order that refused his request for transcripts. The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Allen's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 25(a).
(2) In 1984, Allen was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of multiple counts of Burglary, Theft and Forgery (I.D. No. 83005216DI). On July 25, 1984, Allen was declared an habitual offender and subsequently was sentenced to a total of 15 years incarceration at Level V. This Court affirmed Allen's convictions and sentences.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2001).
The record also reflects that there were additional charges brought against Allen under I.D. Nos. 83005859DI and 84001230DI and that he served consecutive Level V sentences on multiple convictions until 2003, when he finished his Level V time and began serving the Level IV portion of his sentences at Crest North Outreach Center.
Allen v. State, No. 250, 1984 (Del. Apr. 8, 1985) (affirmed convictions of burglary, theft and forgery); Allen v. State, No. 249, 1984 (Del. Apr. 10, 1985) (affirmed convictions of robbery and conspiracy).
(3) In June 2002, Allen filed a motion for transcripts of his habitual offender and sentencing hearings so that he might file a habeas corpus petition. The Superior Court denied the motion. Allen's subsequent appeal was dismissed as interlocutory by this Court. Allen then moved the Superior Court under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) for relief from its order denying his motion for transcripts. The Superior Court denied the motion on the ground that, as a civil motion filed in a criminal case, it was not properly before the court.
Allen v. State, No. 663, 2002 (Del. Dec. 31, 2002).
(4) In this appeal, Allen claims that: a) his habitual offender sentence violates the holding of the United States Supreme Court enunciated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); and b) he had an insufficient number of convictions to qualify as an habitual offender.
(5) Allen's claims were not presented to the Superior Court in the first instance and, therefore, we may not consider them in this appeal. Moreover, as a substantive matter, the Superior Court's decision not to reopen its judgment in Allen's criminal case pursuant to Rule 60(b), a rule of civil procedure, was proper.
Supr. Ct. R. 8.
(6) It is manifest on the face of Allen's opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
The record reflects that, in September 1984, the Superior Court granted a motion by Allen for a copy of the transcript of his habitual offender hearing. Thus, it appears that Allen already has received a copy of the transcript he seeks here. However, we conclude that the interests of justice and efficiency will best be served by simply sending Allen another copy of the transcript, which is contained in the record before us, along with a copy of this Order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.