State of Delaware v. Miller.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. JOHN MILLER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. 9712003463 Submitted: April 15, 2011 Decided: July 29, 2011 On Defendant s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief. DENIED. ORDER Richard Zemble, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. John Miller, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 1181 Paddock Road, Smyrna, Delaware 19977. Pro se. CARPENTER, J. On this 29th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant John E. Miller s Motion for Postconviction relief, it appears to the Court that: 1. On April 13, 1998, John E. Miller ( Defendant ) pled guilty to Robbery First Degree. On August 28, 1998, the Court declared Defendant to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to thirty years incarceration. On August 4, 1999, Defendant s conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. 2. On March 8, 2011, Defendant filed the present motion for postconviction relief. The Defendant supplemented his motion with a letter to the Court on April 15, 2011 entitled Notice of Hunger/Dehydration. By the Court s count, the Defendant has previously filed thirteen unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief in connection with this guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, this motion for postconviction relief will be summarily dismissed. 3. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) sets forth the procedural rules that may operate to bar a defendant s claim to postconviction relief.1 However, under Rule 61(d)(4), the Court may summarily dismiss a motion for postconviction relief 1 The Court will not consider the merits of a defendant s motion for postconviction relief if procedurally barred by the Ru le. 2 without consideration for the procedural bars if it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief ¦. 2 4. In the present motion, the Defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not explain the elements of the charge to him and as such his plea of guilty to the charge of robbery in the first degree was not knowingly made.3 In his Notice of Hunger [and] Dehydration filed with the Court on April 15, 2011, the Defendant elaborated that the indictment charging him with Robbery First Degree was defective because, under Delaware law, a verbal declaration that one has a gun is not a display of what appears to be a Delaware weapon as is required to support a charge of robbery in the first degree, and his guilty plea is therefore invalid.4 5. As noted above, the Court has already entertained thirteen previous unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief from this Defendant in connection with his guilty plea. The Defendant has presented no new grounds for relief in his most recent motion and has in fact been complaining of the allegedly defective indictment since 2002. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion as being 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4). D.I. 324, F ourteenth M otion for Postco nviction Relief. 4 D.I. 327, Notice of Hunger/Dehydration. 3 3 untimely, repetitive, and having been previously adjudicated and the motion is summarily dismissed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William C. Carpenter, Jr. Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
