Haskins v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CARL J. HASKINS, JR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 377, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN86-08-0702 C.A. No. 01M-05-058 Submitted: September 5, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 17th day of October 2001, it appears to the Court that: (1) On August 8, 2001, the Court received the notice of appeal of defendant-appellant, Carl J. Haskins, Jr. The appeal was from the Superior Court s July 25, 2001 order denying reargument of its denial of Haskins petition for a writ of habeas corpus (C.A. No. 01M-05-058) and from the Superior Court s July 16, 2001 order denying Haskins request that the charges against him be dismissed (Cr.A. No. IN86-08-0702). (2) On August 16, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Haskins to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as repetitive and frivolous.1 Haskins filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 22, 2001. The State of Delaware filed a memorandum in support of dismissal on August 31, 2001. Haskins states that his appeal should not be dismissed because his current claim is different from the claims regarding his conviction and sentence that led to this Court s Order limiting his appeals.2 Specifically, Haskins argues that the Department of Correction s 1993 modification of the procedures relating to good time constitutes an ex post facto violation because it changed the quantum of punishment. 3 (3) We conclude that the claim asserted in Haskins appeal is repetitive of claims made and decided by this Court in a previous appeal.4 The Superior Court was, therefore, correct in dismissing Haskins claim as previously adjudicated. We further conclude that any future filings by Haskins asserting the 1 In the Matter of the Petition of Carl J. Haskins, Jr. for a Writ of Prohibition, Del. Supr., No. 472, 1994, Hartnett, J., 1995 WL 13441 (Jan. 11, 1995) (ORDER) (ordering that no further filings by Haskins in regard to his conviction or sentencing for second degree rape would be docketed in the Supreme Court without a Justice of the Court first determining that the proposed application is neither repetitious nor frivolous). 2 Id. 3 Citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 36 (1981). 4 Haskins v. Delaware Correctional Center, Del. Supr., No. 406, 1999, Holland, J., 2000 WL 628332 (Apr. 28, 2000) (ORDER) (deciding that the Department of Correction s modification of the good time policy did not constitute either a due process or an ex post facto violation). 2 claim made in the instant appeal will be governed by this Court s Order limiting Haskins appeals.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele_______________ Justice 5 In the Matter of the Petition of Carl J. Haskins, Jr. for a Writ of Prohibition, Del. Supr., No. 472, 1994, Hartnett, J., 1995 WL 13441 (Jan. 11, 1995) (ORDER). 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.
