Opinion
ID No. 0110017907.
Date Submitted: October 11, 2006.
Date Decided: January 11, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Motion for Postconviction Relief.
DENIED.
ORDER
This 11th day of January 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, it appears that:
1. Andres Martinez ("Martinez") has filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. For the reasons set forth below, Maritnez's Motion is DENIED.
2. On September 17, 2002, Martinez pled guilty to two counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact 3rd .
3. On September 17, 2002, the Court sentenced Martinez on the first count to one year at Level V suspended for one year at Level III. Also, the Court sentenced him on the second count to one year at Level V suspended for one year at Level II. Probation was terminated early because of deportation on February 12, 2003.
4. Martinez filed a Motion for Modification on July 27, 2006, which the Court denied on August 25, 2006. Following the Court's denial, Martinez filed this Motion for Postconviction Relief on October 6, 2006.
5. To protect the integrity of Delaware's procedural rules, the Court will not consider the merits of a postconviction claim if defendant's claims are procedurally barred. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) imposes four procedural imperatives: 1) the motion must be filed within three years of a final order of conviction; 2) any ground for relief that was not asserted in a prior postconviction proceeding is thereafter barred; 3) any basis for relief must have been asserted at trial or on direct appeal as required by the court rules; and 4) any ground for relief must not have been formerly adjudicated in any proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction.
6. Rule 61(i)(1) bars Martinez from relief because he did not file his Postconviction Relief Motion within three years of the final order of conviction. However, Rule 61(i)(5) states that this bar to relief does not apply if "there was a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction." The Court finds that no "miscarriage of justice" took place here.
7. Based upon the above reasoning, Martinez's Motion for Postconviction Relief is, hereby, DENIED.
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
The July 1, 2005 amendment substituted "one year" for "three years" twice in (i)(1). Since the judgment of conviction in the case at hand falls prior to the date of this amendment, the one year time limit is not applicable here.
Sup.
IT IS SO ORDERED.