Opinion
ID No. 0509002044.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: April 9, 2008.
Tyrone Miller, Wilmington, DE.
Upon Motion of Defendant for Postconviction Relief — DENIED .
Upon Motion of Defendant for Transcripts — DENIED .
Dear Mr. Miller:
You have filed a motion for postconviction relief. Your claims derive from a violation of probation hearing and sentence on September 14, 2007:
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel at a violation of probation hearing did not make the Court aw are of your "mental health disease."
2. The TASC case worker, Ms. Davis, who had been monitoring you for three years, was not present at that violation hearing.
3. Cruel and unusual punishment. The court did not take into consideration that "disease."
4. Hardship. You attempted suicide last year and were sick because you had not taken your "medication."
On March 7, 2008, the Delaware Supreme Court denied your appeal of this Court's order denying a reduction in the September 14th sentence. You claimed on appeal that you should have a new violation of probation hearing because:
1. Your were not given a psycho-forensic evaluation prior the September 2007 violation of probation hearing.
2. Your case manager was not present at the hearing.
3. You were not able to consult with your attorney prior to the hearing.
The Supreme Court rejected all of these arguments and no new violation of probation hearing was ordered. Basically, what you have done is to repackage the same claims into a motion for postconviction relief. Your motion lacks any merit.
Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623199 (Del.).
The Court could not consider this motion while your earlier appeal was pending.
1. You had counsel at the violation of probation hearing, and you had time to consult with him.
2. You have failed to show counsel was aware of mental health disease.
3. Even if you had told him, you have not shown how that would have changed your September 14, 2007, violation of probation sentence.
4. You have provided no evidence that there is a "mental health disease." I note the following from a 2005 TASC report which is in your presentence file I had on September 14th:
Substance Abuse Treatment Progress
Mr. Miller re-engaged in substance abuse/mental health at PSI on 06/06/2005. It is reported he did exceptionally well with all areas scored at optinmum progress levels. Following psychiatric evaluation, staff at PSI noted some degree of hyperactivity possibly caused by anxiety, however no medication was prescribed. All submitted drug screens by Mr. Miller, were negative for any illicit substance abuse. Additionally, he reported attending NA Groups outside PSI requirements. Due to Mr. Miller's participation, he was scheduled to be successfully discharged from treatment early, on 09/09/2005. However on 09/02/2005, Mr. Miller was immediately discharged due to non-compliance by client — accepting drugs while on PSI premises. Mr. Miller reported at that time the substance was Viagra, but no official determination was made.
TASC Court Report dated October 19, 2005.
I had that report and read it before sentencing you on October 19, 2005.
5. The last TASC report (May 21, 2007) in your presentence file makes no mention of any mental health disease. It notes you were out of compliance with TASC and with Crest Aftercare as of May 2007.
6. The violation of probation Administrative Warrant alleged you absconded from supervision as of May 15, 2007. You were not returned to custody until August 22, 2007.
7. The sentence for which you were on probation in 2007 had imposed the drug treatment continuum of Key, Crest, Crest Aftercare. That same sentence noted the offense (escape after conviction) was your fifth felony conviction. Your first was in 1987.
8. The presence of your or any TASC case worker at the September 14th violation hearing would have made no difference in light of why you were there for a violation of probation, your history, your violation of drug treatment conditions, etc. You do not, based on your pre-sentence file, have a good history dealing with probation.
Your "postconviction" relief motion is DENIED for these reasons:
1. Your have failed to make any claim of attorney error or, if there were any error, how you were prejudiced by any such error.
2. Some of your claims have been previously adjudicated and are barred.
3. The claim of cruel and unusual punishment because the violation of probation sentence failed to account for a mental disease is without merit.
4. Any "hardship" on you is totally self-inflicted due to your record.
Rule 61(i)(4).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, defendant Tyrone Miller's motion for postconviction relief is DENIED. Your motion for transcripts is also DENIED.