State v. Naylor

• Decision Date: 05 February 1965
• Citation: State v. Naylor, 207 A.2d 1, 58 Del. 206, 8 Storey 206 (Del. Super. 1965)
• Parties: , 58 Del. 206 STATE of Delaware v. Charles D. NAYLOR, Alfred L. Richardson, Michael Young. Application of Charles D. NAYLOR, Petitioner, for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 1

207 A.2d 1

8 Storey 206, 58 Del. 206

STATE of Delaware v.Charles D. NAYLOR, Alfred L. Richardson, Michael Young Application of Charles D. NAYLOR, Petitioner, for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Feb. 5, 1965.

Motions were filed to dismiss indictments returned by the Grand Jury in the above numbered criminal actions.Motions granted.In the civil action, wherein Charles D. Naylor filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the petition is granted and petitioner is ordered to be discharged.

Ruth M. Ferrell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for the State of Delaware.

Bruce M. Stargatt, of Morford, Young & Conway, Wilmington, for Charles D. Naylor as defendant in criminal actions and as petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings.

Clyde M. England, Jr., of Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, for defendantAlfred Lee Richardson.

Sidney Balick, Wilmington, for defendantMichael Young.

LYNCH, Judge.

At the time the defendants¹ in the above styled and numbered criminal actions and the Petitioner in the Habeas Corpus proceeding were arrested on June 29 and 30, 1964, by the Wilmington City Police, they were minors, i. e. over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 years.

They were charged with the commission of a number of alleged crimes, including several robberies (felonies), and in accordance with the provisions of Title 11, Delaware Code, they were taken before the Family Court of New Castle County, where they were charged as delinquents.

On July 2, 1964, one of the Judges of that court represented to this court that each of said persons had attained his sixteenth birthday, but not his eighteenth birthday; that in spite of intensive efforts of the Family Court, with reference to previous delinquencies, none had responded to available rehabilitative services of the Family Court; that each of said persons is now charged with other offenses, all of which were committed following his sixteenth birthday, and in the judgment of the Family Court, none of said persons 'is amenable to and will not profit by any further processes or services availabel to and in the Family Court'.

On such representations and pursuant to statute, 11 Del.C. §§ 2711and2712, the Family Court requested this court to take sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the persons and offenses so that the Attorney General could proceed by information or indictment.Attached to each of the petitions were copies of orders entered by the Family Court, certified to by the Clerk of the Family Court, reciting:

'* * * the above child being present, the Court, after hearing the evidence presented, being satisfied that the said child did commit the offense of which he is accused, THE HONORABLE * * * JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ORDERED * * *

'That with respect to * * *.

'THAT his case was brought before the Court on a charge of robbery * * *.

'THAT this charge also involved several other adults.

'THAT this Defendant has been before this Court periodically since 1959.He has refused to accept the help, guidance and counseling offered and extended to him by this Court.

'THAT in view of his repetitive offenses and the seriousness of the present charges this Court feels that he is not longer amenable to its services or processes.

'THAT I am, therefore, referring him to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court where he will answer these charges as an adult.

'THAT let the record show that Defendant, * * * was advised of his Constitutional Rights to obtain an an attorney and he indicated that he wishes to obtain an attorney.

'THAT on the charge of Robbery and possible Homicide bail is set at $8,000.00.

'* * *.

'THAT pending posting of the bail he will be detained at the First Offenders Building because of his extensive Juvenile record and the seriousness of the charges.'

After the Family Court had so acted and this court took jurisdiction, the defendants were indicted by the Grand Jury, charged with several offenses, including commission of a number of felonies.After this court took jurisdiction of the defendants, it appointed counsel to represent them.

Defendants Richardson and Young were released on bail, pursuant to Orders of the Family Court; the defendant Naylor was, however, detained in the First Offenders Building of the New Castle County Correctional Institution because he was unable to make his bail.

Following the return of the indictments, counsel for each of the defendants served on the Attorney General and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the indictments, contending thereby:

'1.Defendant was not accorded a preliminary hearing of any kind; and

'2.Defendant was not afforded counsel at the hearing which was held * * * in the Family Court for New Castle County which hearing was supposedly conducted pursuant to Title 11, Section 2711, et seq.

'3.Although defendant is under the age of 18 years (a fact known to the State), the State did not follow the mandatory procedure at 11 Del.C. § 2711 et seq., with the result that this Court is without jurisdiction.

'4.The indictments must be dismissed because pursuant to SECTION 2713 OF TITLE 11² the Family Court for New Castle County must continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.'

An affidavit of each defendant was filed in support of the factual allegations as are set forth in the several motions to dismiss the indictment.These motions ostensibly were filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12andRule 47(a), Superior Court Rules of Criminal Rocedure, Del.C.Ann. Memoranda was filed by counsel for the defendants and by the Attorney General and the motions were set down for oral argument.

Some preliminary discussion of applicable statutes seems desirable in order that the contentions raised by defendants can be understood.

By statute, 10 Del.C. § 951(2), as amended, the Family Court of New Castle County has been vested with exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings in New Castle County, 'concerning any child residing or found in New Castle County charged with having violated any law of this state * * *.'

Title 11 Del.C. §§ 2711and2712 provide:

' § 2711.Grounds for jurisdictional change

'Any child, who has attained his or her sixteenth birthday and who is alleged to have thereafter committed an offense, which, but for this subchapter would have been a delinquent act only, and who, in the judgment of the court which conducts on behalf of this State, a hearing in his or her interest, is not amendable to and will not profit by the processes of the court, may be proceeded against by information or indictment and be prosecuted in the same manner and in the same court, and upon conviction shall suffer the same penalties for the commission of the offense as if the child were an adult at the time of the commission of the offense.As amended 52 Del.Laws, Ch. 102, eff. June 25, 1959.'³ ]

' § 2712.Vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in Superior Court'When there shall have been filed in the office of the Prothonotary of the county in which the offense was committed, as a part of the permancent records in the case, a statement in writing, signed by the judge of the inferior court having jurisdiction of the child and of the offense, setting forth that in the judgment of the court the child is not amendable to and will not profit by the processes of the court, the same shall constitute a deprivation of jurisdiction over the person and the offense of the child of all inferior courts of this State, and the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the person and of the offense of the child shall vest in the Superior Court and the Attorney General may thereafter proceed by information or indictment, as the case may be.As amended 52 Del.Laws, Ch. 102, eff. June 25, 1959.'⁴

The Supreme Court of Delaware, pursuant to its Rule Making Powers (1897 Const., Art. 4, § 13(1),Del.C.Ann.), on November 6, 1952 adopted, and made effective February 12, 1953, Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.

Rule 1 of said Rules prescribes that:

'RULE 1.SCOPE

'These rules govern the procedure in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in all criminal proceedings and the procedure before Justices of the Peace, Courts of Common Pleas in each of the counties, the Municipal Court for the City of Wilmington, The Family Court for New Castle County and the Juvenile Courts for each of the counties, in proceedings preliminary to indictment by grand jury or the filing of an information in the Superior Court.'

Rule 2, in part, prescribes:

'RULE 2.PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION

'These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding. * * *.'

Rule 5 of said Rules prescribes:

'RULE 5.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTING MAGISTRATE

'(a) Appearance.An officer making an arrest with or without a warrant or any other authorized peace officer shall take the arrested person without unreasonable delay before either the nearest available Justice of the Peace of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed or before the court out of which the warrant issued, in accordance with the command of the warrant.When an arrest is made without a warrant, a complaint shall be made as soon as the accused is brought before a committing magistrate.

'(b) Statement by the Committing Magistrate.The committing magistrate shall inform the defendant of the complaint against him, of his right to retain counsel and of his right to have a preliminary hearing.He shall also inform the defendant that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him.The committing magistrate shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.

'(c) Preliminary Hearing.The defendant shall not be called upon to plead.If the defendant waives preliminary hearing, the committing...