Hackett v. Pierce et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/30/2019. (etg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VICTOR HACKETT,
Petitioner,
Civ. Act. No. 16-741-LPS
V.
DANA METZGER,Warden, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Victor Hackett. Pro se Petitioner.
Martin B. O'Connor, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department ofJustice, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.
September 30,2019
Wilmington, Delaware
STARK,U.S. District Judge:
Pending before the Court is an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254("Petition") filed by Petitioner Victor Hackett ("Petitioner"}. (D.I. 1) The State filed
an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 8; D.I. 13) For the reasons
discussed, the Court will deny the Petition.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2006,Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
(D.I. 8 at 2) On February 16, 2007, the Superior Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to
twenty years at Level V,suspended after fifteen mandatory years, followed by probation. Petitioner
did not file a direct appeal.
On November 13,2007, Petitioner filed a motion for correction of sentence, which the
Superior Court denied on December 12, 2007. (D.I. 8 at 2) The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed
that decision on May 28, 2008. See Hackett v. State, 956 A.2d 642(Table), 2008 WL 2192164 (Del.
May 28, 2008).
On January 2, 2008, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Delaware
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion"). (D.I. 8 at 2) The Superior Court denied the
Rule 61 motion. Petitioner appealed. The Delaware Supreme Court granted the State's motion to
remand, and the Superior Court denied the Rule 61 motion on March 3, 2010. (D.I. 8 at 2-3) It
appears that Petitioner did not appeal that decision.
On November 26, 2014,Petitioner filed a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to
Superior Court Ctiminal Rule 35(a), claiming that the suspended portion of his sentence violated 11
Del. C. § 4214(a). The Superior Court construed the motion as a Rule 35(b) motion for correction
of sentence, and denied it as untimely filed. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court determined
the motion was timely, and remanded the matter for resentencing, consistent with 11 Del. C.
§ 4214(a). (D.I. 8 at 3; see also Hackett v. State, 119 A.3d 42 (Table), 2015 WL 4463789(Del July 21,
2015)) The Superior Court resentenced Petitioner on December 5, 2015 to fifteen years at Level V,
followed by nine months at Level IV, followed by eighteen months at Level III probation. The
Superior Court imposed the Level V portion of the amended sentence pursuant to 11 DeL C.
4214(a), and the Level IV and Level III portions of the amended sentence pursuant to 11 Del. C.
4204(a). (D.L8at4)
Petitioner appealed the December 5, 2015 sentence, contending that a sentence imposed
under § 4214(a) could not include probation. Altematively, Petitioner argued that, if the sentence
could include probation, the probationary period could not exceed six months. (D.I. 8 at 4) The
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on July 18,2016. See Hackett v. State, 144 A.3d 552
(Table), 2016 WL 4091242 pel.July IB, 2016).
II.
DISCUSSION
A federal court may consider a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner only "on the ground
that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). Claims based on errors of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas review,
and federal courts cannot re-examine state court determinations of state law issues. See Mu/Ian^ v.
Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 (1975)("State courts are the ultimate expositors of state law."); Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)("[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state-court determinations on state-law questions.").
In his sole ground for relief, Petitioner asserts that the Delaware statutes under which he was
sentenced in December 2015 — § 4214(a) and § 4204(1) — are "internally contradictory." He also
asks the Court to rule upon the following question that the state courts declined to address: if
Peritioaer completes the Level V portion of bis sentence, what happens if he violates the probation
imposed pursuant to § 4204(1). (D.L 1)
As an initial matter, the Court wiU not address Petitioner's question about the effect of a
possible probation violation, as this seeks an impermissible advisory and hypothetical opinion. See,
e.g., Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100,102(1982)(explaining that federal courts "do not sit to
decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse
parties before them"). Petitioner's argument that § 4214(a) and § 4204(1) are "internally
contradictory" is similarly unavailing, because it fails to assert an issue cognizable on federal habeas
review. Petitioner presented the argument to the Delaware Supreme Court as an issue of state law,
and the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the argument based upon settied Delaware law and that
Court's interpretation of state law. In turn, Petitioner's instant presentation of the argument is based
entirely on Delaware law and fails to implicate federal law. Given these circumstances, the Court
will deny Petitioner's sole ground for relief because it fails to assert a proper basis for federal habeas
relief.
III.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEAJLABILITY
A district court issuing a final order denying a § 2254 petition must also decide whether to
issue a certificate of appealability. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011). A certificate of appealability is
appropriate when a petitioner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"
by demonstrating "that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484(2000).
The Court has concluded that the Petition does not warrant relief, and reasonable jurists
would not find this conclusion to be debatable. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate
of appealability.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed. Petitioner's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied in its entirety without a hearing. An appropriate Order will be entered.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?