Miller v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § JOHN E. MILLER, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. No. 287, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN97-04-0204; 0208 Submitted: August 19, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of October 2005, 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, John E. Miller, appeals from the Superior Court s June 23, 2005 order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 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 Miller s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) In September 1997, Miller pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Third Degree and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. He was sentenced to 5 years incarceration at Level V, suspended for time served for a total of 52 months probation. In March 1998, Miller was found to have committed a violation of probation ( VOP ) and was sentenced to 1 year incarceration at Level V. In April 1998, Miller pleaded guilty in an unrelated case to Robbery in the First Degree and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years incarceration at Level V. (3) In January 2005, Miller moved for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. He claimed that his 1997 guilty plea was defective because he did not understand: (i) the elements of the charges to which he was pleading guilty; (ii) the minimum and maximum penalties for the charges; and (iii) the trial rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. The Superior Court dismissed Miller s motion, holding that Miller s claims were moot because he already had completed the sentence imposed as a result of his 1997 guilty plea. (4) The Superior Court correctly dismissed Miller s motion. The record reflects that Miller s conviction became final in October 1997. Miller s motion, filed in January 2005, was filed after the three-year period 2 prescribed by Rule 61.1 Moreover, Miller has presented no evidence of a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction a miscarriage that would permit judicial review of his untimely claim.2 (5) It is manifest on the face of Miller s opening brief that the appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 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. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). We affirm on a basis different from the one articulated by the Superior Court. Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995). 1 2 3
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.
