Opinion
Def. ID#s 9703009612 and 9503003941
Date Submitted: January 30, 2002
Date Decided: April 9, 2002
Michael Oberly SCI, Georgetown, DE.
Dear Mr. Oberly:
Defendant Michael Oberly ("defendant") has filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61") in connection with this Court's November 28, 2001, sentencing order. He asserts three grounds for relief. First, he is being illegally detained. Second, his good time credits were illegally revoked at the time of his sentencing. Third, he was not personally addressed during his violation of probation hearing.
The first two grounds of relief are not properly subject to a Rule 61 motion, and accordingly, are denied. In fact, as defendant is well aware, these issues have been addressed repeatedly by this Court in both these criminal cases and a habeas corpus action.
The third ground for relief is procedurally barred. Defendant did not appeal his violation of probation sentence and raise this ground on appeal. Defendant has failed to show cause for relief from the procedural default and prejudice from any alleged violation of his rights. The contention that he was not personally addressed during his violation of probation hearing is procedurally barred. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3). Even if the Court considered his contention, it would find no prejudice. Defendant argues that "he wanted to argue the fact that he had already served the Ballance [sic] of this sentence actually at Level 5 incarceration." Defendant has repeatedly raised this issue and this Court has repeatedly concluded his position is wrong. Being able to raise it one more time would not have made any difference in the Court finding him guilty of violating probation or in imposing the sentence which it imposed. This claim fails.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the pending motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.