State v. Palmer

Full title: STATE v. RAYFIELD PALMER

Court: Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Jan 27, 2003

ID No. 9912007233 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2003)

Opinion

ID No. 9912007233

January 27, 2003

Criminal Action No. 99-12-0477 through 0479 (R2)

Motion for Postconviction Relief

Karl Haller, Esquire, Department of Justice

T. Henley Graves

Dear Mr. Palmer:

On January 21, 2003, the Court received your second Motion for Postconviction Relief. In same, you contest your arrest as being illegal because your post-guilty plea survey establishes that you were not arrested within 1,000 feet of a school zone. You complain that this favorable evidence was withheld from the Court. Finally, you complain that your attorney allowed coercion to take place in the guilty plea negotiations because you were threatened with a more severe penalty if you went to trial and were convicted.

On August 14, 2000, this Court denied your first Motion for Postconviction Relief. In that application, you made a similar argument concerning whether or not you were within 1,000 feet of a school zone. That application was denied and you did not take an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

I find that your present application is procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule No. 61(i)(1). You entered your guilty plea on January 10, 2000. You filed this present application on January 21, 2003 which is more than the three years permitted under the Rule.

It is also barred under Rule 61(i)(2) in that it is a repetitive Motion and any ground not asserted in the prior proceeding is barred unless it's a claim to be considered in the interest of justice. This would only attach to the claim that you were coerced through threats of a more severe penalty. I do not find that your present claims should be considered in the interest of justice. This is a case where you negotiated a specific sentence due to your previous history and it was not unreasonable for you to be told that if you went to trial as opposed to accepting the negotiated plea, you faced the potential of more severe consequences.

Finally as to Grounds 1 and 2, they have been formerly adjudicated and therefore are barred under Rule 61(i)(4). I do not find any reason to reconsider these claims in the interest of justice.

For the aforementioned reasons, your present application is procedurally barred and your petition is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.