ELAM v. STATE

Full title: MICHAEL ELAM, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff…

Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Jun 18, 2004

No. 598, 2003 (Del. Jun. 18, 2004)

Opinion

No. 598, 2003.

Submitted: April 23, 2004.

Decided: June 18, 2004.

Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. A. No. IN98-09-1109.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.

ORDER

Jack B. Jacobs, Justice.

This 18^th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendant-appellant, Michael Elam, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's November 25, 2003 order denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

(2) In December 1999, a Superior Court jury found Elam guilty of Robbery in the Second Degree. In February 2000, Elam was declared an habitual offender¹ and was sentenced to 15 years incarceration at Level V. Elam's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.²

1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2001).

2 Elam v. State, Del. Supr., No. 70, 2000, Steele, J. (Jan. 16, 2001).

(3) In this appeal, Elam claims that the Superior Court failed to address his claim that the trial judge abused his discretion by permitting evidence of prior bad acts to be presented to the jury. To the extent Elam has not argued other grounds to support his appeal that were raised previously, those grounds are deemed waived and will not be addressed by this Court.³

3 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). In his postconviction motion, Elam also argued that the police violated his constitutional rights by taking his photo for identification purposes, the prosecutor violated the discovery rules, and his attorney failed to arrange for an alibi witness at trial.

(4) We have reviewed Elam's motion for postconviction relief filed in the Superior Court as well as the Superior Court's decision. Elam is correct that he raised the issue of the admission of prior bad acts evidence in his motion for postconviction relief and that the Superior Court did not address the issue in its November 25, 2003 order. Elam's claim fails, however, because, even if the Superior Court had addressed the issue, it would have been compelled to deny the claim as procedurally defaulted because it was not raised in Elam's direct appeal.⁴ Moreover, the record does not support cause for relief from the procedural default or prejudice from a violation of Elam's rights.⁵ Thus, because the failure of the Superior Court to address Elam's claim does not affect the outcome of this appeal, the decision of the Superior Court must be affirmed.

4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).

5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3)(A) and (B).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.