Opinion
ID No. 9605020926, PN 96-06-0185-R2, IN 96-06-1334-R2.
Submitted: May 11, 2004.
Decided: August 31, 2004.
ORDER
Upon Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief.
This 31st day of August, 2004, upon reconsideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, the papers filed by the parties, and the record in this case, it appears that:
1. On October 5, 2000, the Court denied in part Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief. That decision dealt only with Defendant's claims relating to the entry of his guilty plea, specifically, ineffective assistance of counsel and conflict of interest. See State v. Lucas, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. PN96-06-0185, Goldstein, J. (Oct. 5, 2000) (ORDER).
2. On January 29, 2003, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief holding that, although the sentencing order misstated the crime charged as "PFDCF," the Defendant was legally sentenced for Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 1447. See State v. Lucas, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. PN
3. The present motion is Defendant's third Motion for Postconviction Relief, and second instance of asserting various claims as a result of his guilty plea. Having previously been denied, no additional information has been provided to the Court which would warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence.
4. Accordingly, because the Court finds Defendant's grounds for relief in support of his motion pertaining to his sentencing to be without merit for the reasons set forth above, the remaining claims contained in Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief are DENIED.