State v. Harris

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE, v. SAMUEL L. HARRIS, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Jul 3, 2002

Crim. ID No. 9801013999 IK98-02-0069-R1, IK98-02-0856-R1, IK98-02-0072-R1, IK98-02-0076-R1 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 3, 2002)

Opinion

Crim. ID No. 9801013999 IK98-02-0069-R1, IK98-02-0856-R1, IK98-02-0072-R1, IK98-02-0076-R1

Submitted: June 14, 2002

Decided: July 3, 2002

SUSAN C. DEL PESCO, Judge.

ORDER

On this 3rd day of July 2002, upon consideration of defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendations and the record in this case, it appears that:

(1) On September 24, 1998, a jury found the defendant guilty of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 531 (2001), one count of Forgery in the Second Degree, Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 861 (2001), Aggravated Menacing, Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 602 (2001), and Criminal Impersonation, Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 907 (2001). Prior to sentencing, defendant's counsel filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. The defendant was declared a habitual offender, pursuant to Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2001). On May 6, 1999, the defendant was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration under Del. C. Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) (2001) for Attempted Robbery and seven additional years of incarceration suspended after five years for probation on the remaining counts.

(2) The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed.¹ The defendant filed this motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, defendant asserts thirteen grounds for relief.

1 State v. Harris, 2000 WL 313488 (Del. Feb. 18, 2000).

(3) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Freud pursuant to Del. C. Ann. tit. 10 Del. C. § 512(b) (1999) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendations concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be denied.

(4) No objections to the Report have been filed.

NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendations dated May 15, 2002,

IT IS SO ORDERED that:

(A) The Commissioner's Report and Recommendations is adopted by the Court;

(B) The defendant's motion for postconviction relief is DENIED.