State v. Hull
88K01144DI
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2021Background
- In 1993 Robert L. Hull was convicted by a Superior Court jury of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree and sentenced to life imprisonment; the conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1994.
- Hull’s first motion for postconviction relief was denied by the Superior Court in 1997 and the denial was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- Between late 2020 and mid‑2021 Hull submitted nine filings to the Superior Court that the court repeatedly found to be largely incomprehensible, procedurally improper, and often sent to the wrong judge.
- The court issued notices of non‑compliance and repeatedly dismissed or returned filings as repetitive, incomprehensible, or procedurally barred.
- The July/August 2021 submission at issue contained disjointed references (e.g., “PHYSICAL HUMAN ANATOMY,” “EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIBRARY”) and the court could not identify asserted grounds or requested relief.
- The Superior Court denied the August 2021 motion as frivolous and abusive and enjoined Hull from filing further submissions in case no. 88K01144DI without first obtaining leave of court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hull) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should consider Hull’s August 2021 filing | Filing is largely incomprehensible, repetitive, and fails to state grounds or relief; should be denied | Filing presents claims and seeks relief (content not intelligible) | Court denied the filing as incomprehensible and frivolous |
| Whether repeated incomprehensible filings may be enjoined | Court resources are being abused; prior authority permits restricting future filings by an abusive litigant | Hull continued to submit filings despite guidance (no coherent procedural defense shown) | Court enjoined Hull from filing further submissions in the case without prior leave |
| Whether Hull complied with required procedural form and venue | Filings did not follow motion format or status‑sheet requirements and were sometimes sent to the President Judge | Hull did not present filings in the required form or correct recipient | Court enforced procedural requirements and returned/dismissed noncompliant submissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hull v. State, 650 A.2d 1306 (Del. 1994) (appellate affirmance of Hull’s conviction)
- Hull v. State, 710 A.2d 218 (Del. 1998) (affirming denial of Hull’s earlier postconviction relief)
- Kostyshyn v. State, 124 A.3d 583 (Del. 2015) (Delaware Supreme Court recognized trial courts’ discretion to restrict future abusive filings)