Opinion
CR.A. No.: IN80-01-0332 R5.
Submitted: October 19, 2004.
Decided: January 3, 2005.
ORDER
Upon review of Defendant, Elmer Daniels', fifth motion for postconviction relief and the record, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant Elmer Daniels was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendant subsequently filed unsuccessful petitions for federal habeas corpus relief and state postconviction relief. This Court denied thedefendant's motion for postconviction relief and was affirmed on appeal. In February 1997, Defendant moved a second time for postconviction relief, and again the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's denial of Defendant's motion. On November, 18, 1999, this Court denied Defendant's third postconviction relief motion. On September 25, 2000, this Court denied Defendant's fourth motion for postconviction relief because it was not filed within three years after the judgment of conviction became final.
Daniels v. State, No. 173, 1980, McNeilly, J. (Del., Aug. 13, 1981) (ORDER).
Daniels v. State, No. 91, 1983, Moore, J. (Del., July 25, 1983) (ORDER).
Daniels v. State, 702 A.2d 925 (Del. 1997).
D.I. 64.
2. Defendant's current motion alleges various grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, and that he has been denied other evidence in discovery to which he is entitled.
D.I. 66.
3. In reviewing motions for postconviction relief, the Court must first determine whether a defendant's claims are barred by procedural requirements prior to addressing the merits of the underlying claims. Rule 61(i)(1) provides, in part, that a motion for postconviction relief "may not be filed more than three years after the judgment of conviction is final. . . ." A criminal conviction does not become final until the issuance of the Supreme Court's order affirming the conviction.
Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991).
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (i)(1) (emphasis added).
Younger v. State, 580 A. 2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
4. In this case, Defendant filed his fifth motion for postconviction relief on August 17, 2004, more than twenty-three years after an August 13, 1981 mandate was issued affirming his conviction. Consequently, because Defendant's Rule 61 motion was filed "more than three years" after his conviction became final, this Court finds that his claims are procedurally barred. Moreover, all of the issues raised in this fifth motion for postconviction relief could have been raised in a timely filed motion. The Court does not find that the "interests of justice" require it to consider these otherwise waived claims for relief.
Id.
Id.
Based upon the foregoing, Elmer Daniels' fifth Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.