Opinion
I.D. No. 0005025385
Submitted: July 27, 2001
Decided: August 27, 2001
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF. SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
ORDER
This 27th day of August, 2001, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On January 30, 2001, Defendant, Maurice X. Barrett, pleaded guilty to Burglary Second Degree, Misdemeanor Theft, and four counts of Non-compliance with Conditions of Release. On the same date, the Court sentenced Defendant for Burglary Second Degree to four years Level 5 incarceration, suspended after three months for six months at Level 4 Plummer Center, followed by six months at Level 4 home confinement. Defendant was sentenced to probation on the remaining counts. Defendant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief on February 1, 2001. The Court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion on March 12, 2001. Defendant has appealed the Court's decision to the Delaware Supreme Court.
(2) Defendant has now filed a second Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In support of his motion, Defendant lists as grounds for relief claims that he was not given credit in his sentence for time served prior to his guilty plea and that his defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty. Also, Defendant states that he was given a gold chain at his sentencing that he had been charged with stealing. It is not clear whether Defendant intended this to be a separate ground for relief, and if so, what postconviction claim Defendant alleges.
(3) The Court finds that all of Defendant's grounds for relief are procedurally barred. Defendant's claim that he was not given credit for time served was raised by Defendant in his first motion for postconviction relief. The Court determined that his claim fell outside the scope of Rule 61. As a result, this claim is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4) as having been formerly adjudicated. The Court finds that reconsideration of the claim is not warranted in the interest of justice.
(4) Defendant's second and third grounds for relief are procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 61(i)(2) because Defendant failed to assert them in his prior postconviction motion. Again, the Court finds that consideration of these claims is not warranted in the interest of justice. Nor can the Court find that Defendant has raised a colorable claim of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings against him.
Therefore, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.