Opinion
No. 463, 2001
Decided: February 22, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN80-12-0863.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
RAYMOND L. BRUTON, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 463, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 2, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
This 22nd day of February 2002, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellant's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Raymond L. Bruton, filed this appeal from the September 26, 2001 order of the Superior Court 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 his appeal, Bruton claims that: a) the Superior Court erred in finding that the United States Supreme Court case of Apprendi v. New Jersey was inapplicable to his case; b) his 25-year sentence as a first-time drug offender constituted cruel and unusual punishment; and c) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest.
530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Bruton also complains that the Superior Court abused its discretion by treating his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 61 as a motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Rule 35. There is no factual basis for this complaint since the Superior Court withdrew its previous order, which had been issued in error pursuant to Rule 35, and entered a corrected order on September 26, 2001.
(3) In 1981, Bruton was convicted by a Superior Court jury of Delivery of a Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment at Level V. Bruton's direct appeal was dismissed by this Court. The record reflects that Bruton filed at least four postconviction actions between 1986 and 1990, both in this Court and in the federal court.
Bruton v. State, Del. Supr., No. 257, 1981, Horsey, J. (June 15, 1982) (Having escaped from custody during the pendency of his direct appeal, Bruton waived his right to a disposition of his direct appeal of his conviction and sentence).
(4) Bruton's claim that Apprendi applies to his case is without merit. Bruton's 25-year sentence was authorized by the criminal statute pursuant to which he was sentenced. Apprendi applies only when a defendant's sentence is enhanced beyond the maximum term authorized by statute.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4751 (repealed 1989).
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
(5) Bruton's claims that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest are both unavailing. Neither of these claims was presented on direct appeal because Bruton forfeited all claims he either asserted or could have asserted on direct appeal due to his escape. The claims are, therefore, barred. The claims are also barred because Bruton failed to assert them in any of his several post-conviction actions.
SUPER. CT. CRIM. RULE 61(i) (3).
SUPER. CT. CRIM. RULE 61(i) (2).
(6) It is manifest on the face of Bruton's opening brief that the appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled law and, to the extent that 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/ Myron T. Steele Justice