Opinion
1K02-05-0782-R1.
November 18, 2003.
In the Superior Court of the state of Delaware, in and for Kent County, ID. No. 0205013182.
Dennis Kelleher, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for the State.
Guango Correa, Pro se.
On November 18, 2002, Defendant Guango Correa ("Correa") pled guilty to one count of Assault in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 612. On February 25, 2003 the Court sentenced Correa to a total of five years at Level V incarceration with credit for 152 days served, suspended after serving two years for varying levels of probation.
Correa did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court, instead he filed the pending motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
In his motion Correa raises the following two grounds for relief
Grounds one: Wrong Judgment. Judge Witham has dismissal (sic) this case and they (sic) was no witness and the other (sic) victim lie (sic) on the police report.
Ground two: Wrong statement. He said that he did not has (sic) nothing to do with it. He was going with Mr. David Jones, boyfriend and lover, it was the other way around. But the State let him out. Mr. David Jones is a good talker and he is slick one, and a smooth talker.
Under Delaware law the court must consider the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before addressing the merits of any postconviction relief claim. Correa failed to raise either of his claims at his quilty plea, sentencing or on direct appeal to the Supreme Court. His claims are therefore barred by Rule 61(i)(3) absent a demonstration of both cause and prejudice.
Correa fails to allege cause or prejudice for this failure to have raised these issues sooner and they are therefore barred by Rule 61(i)(3) absent a jurisdictional challenge or a colorable claim of miscarriage ofjustice stemming from a constitution violation that "undermines the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction." Correa has made no attempt to allege any such violations and as such these claims should be procedurally barred.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
I therefore recommend the Court deny Correa's motion as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3).
Andrea Maybee Freud Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud