Hill v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN L. HILL (aka KHALIQ QAWI AMIN), Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 101, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 9607013218 Submitted: July 25, 2008 Decided: September 10, 2008 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 10th day of September 2008, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Kevin L. Hill, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s January 31, 2008 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 1997, Hill was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Robbery in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, two counts of Murder in the First Degree, and six counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. His convictions stemmed from a robbery on July 13, 1996 at the Great Wall Chinese Restaurant in Wilmington, Delaware, during which a restaurant employee was killed. Hill was sentenced to two life terms, plus thirty years, to be followed by two years of probation. This Court affirmed Hill s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 (3) In his postconviction motion filed in the Superior Court, Hill s sole claim was that his felony murder conviction should be vacated because there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding that the killing of the restaurant employee was committed in order to facilitate the robbery of the restaurant.2 Because Hill does not raise that claim in this appeal, it is deemed to be waived and will not be addressed by this Court.3 (4) In his appeal, Hill claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to vacate his intentional murder conviction sua sponte. Hill s claim was not presented to the Superior Court in the first instance, precluding appellate review.4 (5) Hill s claim is without merit in any case. While Hill argues that he cannot be guilty of intentional murder because he did not go to the 1 Hill v. State, Del. Supr., No. 226, 1998, Holland, J. (June 14, 1999). Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2003); Chao v. State, 931 A.2d 1000 (Del. 2007). 3 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 4 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 2 2 restaurant with the intention of killing the employee, that is a misstatement of Delaware law. In fact, his conviction of intentional murder required only that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Hill s conscious object to kill the restaurant employee.5 The State was not required to prove either deliberation or premeditation, since, under Delaware law, the intent to kill can be formed in no more than a moment.6 (6) Hill s related argument that a conviction of felony murder and a conviction of intentional murder cannot co-exist also is a misstatement of Delaware law. It is well-settled that the evidence presented by the State at trial can support both an intentional murder conviction as well as a felony murder conviction.7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 5 Cropper v. State, Del. Supr., No. 200, 1999, Hartnett, J. (Jan. 21, 2000) (citing Duonnolo v. State, 397 A.2d 126, 129 (Del. 1978)). 6 Id. 7 Burrell v. State, 766 A.2d 19, 24-25 (Del. 2000); Rush v. State, 491 A.2d 439, 443-45 (Del. 1985). 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.
