Anderson v. State
2011 Del. LEXIS 271
| Del. | 2011Background
- State petitioned Court of Common Pleas to declare Anderson an habitual driving offender under 21 Del. C. § 2802; first petition filed Dec. 7, 2006 and later withdrawn (Feb. 29, 2008) after review.
- Anderson secured counsel after a four-month continuance; the hearing was rescheduled for Feb. 29, 2008.
- A second habitual offender petition was filed Aug. 10, 2009 based on DMV record; Anderson admitted three predicate offenses and hardship, and the court granted the petition on Sept. 25, 2009.
- On Sept. 25, 2009, the trial court observed other petitions on the same calendar and later sua sponte vacated its prior judgment, finding a lack of consistent prosecutorial discretion.
- The trial court then refused to reinstate the judgment; Superior Court reversed; Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the vacatur was improper and restored the earlier habitual-offender finding.
- The issue on appeal is whether the Court of Common Pleas properly vacated its judgment and whether the State’s prosecutorial discretion or alleged misrepresentations justified that action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s prosecutorial discretion is subject to judicial remedy | Anderson: State must prosecute every DMV-recommended case under §2804 | State has broad prosecutorial discretion; no due process/equal protection violation shown | No remedy required; discretion given deference; no error on this point |
| Whether the Court of Common Pleas properly vacated its prior judgment | Courtacted to correct unfair application of §2804 | Vacatur was improper; no logical relationship to any wrong; discretion overruled | Vacatur was error; Superior Court correct to affirm judgment reinstating habitual offender status |
| Whether misrepresentation justify Rule 60(b) relief | State misrepresented facts to Court to influence decision | Transcript shows misunderstanding, not misrepresentation; Rule 60(b)(3) not satisfied | Rule 60(b)(3) and (b)(6) relief not warranted; no extraordinary circumstances or misrepresentation |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions or inherent powers justify vacating the order | Rule 11 or inherent power could sanction or sanction-related vacatur | Sanctions do not authorize vacatur here; no frivolous filing or abuse shown | No Rule 11 sanctions or inherent-power basis for vacatur; not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (prosecutorial charging discretion; broad State authority)
- Ward v. State, 414 A.2d 499 (Del. 1980) (statewide discretion in law enforcement; not required to treat all alike)
- Secrest v. State, 679 A.2d 58 (Del. 1996) (discretionary continuances and judicial rulings in trials)
- State v. Anderson, 2010 WL 1006558 (Del. Ct. Com. Pl.) (Del. 2010) (relevant lower-court decisions cited by Court of Appeals)
- Armstrong v. United States, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (presumption of propriety of prosecutorial charging decisions)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (prosecutorial discretion and due process)