Hamilton v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GARY M. HAMILTON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 229, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 92009719DI Submitted: June 19, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 15th day of July 2013, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief, the State s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Gary Hamilton, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s denial of his motion for postconviction relief and/or motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Hamilton s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Hamilton in 1974 of Murder in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, and two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. The Superior Court sentenced Hamilton to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on the murder conviction and to additional terms of imprisonment on his other convictions. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1 Since that time, Hamilton has filed multiple unsuccessful petitions seeking various forms of postconviction relief. (3) In February 2013, Hamilton filed his latest motion seeking postconviction relief and/or correction of illegal sentence. He essentially argued that his sentence of life imprisonment should be treated as a fixed term of forty-five years. After review, a Superior Court Commissioner recommended denial of the motion. The Superior Court adopted the Commissioner s report and recommendation. This appeal followed. (4) Hamilton raises two issues in his opening brief on appeal. First, he contends that the Superior Court erred in adopting the Commissioner s recommendation without giving due consideration to his objections to the Commissioner s report. Second, Hamilton argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to apply the sentencing laws that were in effect at the time he was convicted. 1 Hamilton v. State, Del. Supr., No. 63, 1977, McNeilly, J. (Dec. 20, 1977). 2 (5) We find no merit to Hamilton s appeal. The Superior Court correctly held that Hamilton s life sentence with eligibility for parole requires Hamilton to serve his sentence for the remainder of his natural life unless he applies for and is granted a discretionary parole under 11 Del. C. § 4346(c).2 His life sentence may not be treated as a fixed term of forty-five years entitling him to conditional release, a form of mandatory parole, pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4348. 3 Hamilton s argument is controlled by settled Delaware law. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 2 Jackson v. Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, 700 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Del. 1997); Evans v. State, 872 A.2d 539, 558 (Del. 2005). 3 Id. at 1206. 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.
