State v. Andrus

Full title: State v. Daryl G. Andrus

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Nov 30, 2006

I.D. 9504004126 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2006)

Opinion

I.D. 9504004126.

Submitted: October 26, 2006.

Decided: November 30, 2006.

On Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

DENIED.

Colleen K. Norris, Esquire, Department of Justice, Carvel State Office Building, DE.

Daryl G. Andrus, Delaware.

RICHARD R. COOCH, RESIDENT JUDGE.

Dear Ms. Norris and Mr. Andrus:

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for appointment of counsel filed pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e). Because Defendant has not shown good cause for appointment of counsel the motion is DENIED.

Defendant was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy in the First Degree in 1995. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Defendant's conviction.¹ Defendant then filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court denied the post-conviction relief motion² and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.³

1 Andrus v. State, 719 A.2d 947 (Del. 1998).

2 State v. Andrus, 2003 WL 1387115 (Del.Super.).

3 Andrus v. State, 844 A.2d 991 (Del. 2004).

Defendant's present motion requests appointment of counsel. There are no other pending motions for post-conviction relief in this case. His reasons for seeking counsel include that he is "unskilled in the law," that he is incarcerated and his access to the law library at the Delaware Correctional Center is limited, and that he is "severely injured due to chronic nerve damage to his spine as a result of a gunshot wound."

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a post-conviction proceeding.⁴ Rule 61(e) provides that the Court shall "appoint counsel for an indigent movant only in the exercise of discretion and for good cause shown, but not otherwise." Defendant has not shown good cause in support of his request for appointment of counsel.⁵ Accordingly, Defendant's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

4 Floyd v. State, 1992 WL 183086 (Del.Supr.) (citing Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)).

5 See State v. Johnson, 2004 WL 3029940 (Del.Super.) (holding that the defendant's allegations that he was poorly educated and had less access to the law library than the other inmates were "not exceptional circumstances that require court-appointed counsel").

IT IS SO ORDERED.