Opinion
No. 84005481DI.
Decided: April 3, 2000.
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. SUMMARILY DISMISSED, No. IN84-09-0789-R2.
This 3rd day of April, 2000, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On April 25, 1985, a jury convicted Defendant, Jack W. Wolf, of Second Degree Rape. On July 18, 1985, the Court sentenced Wolf to 25 years imprisonment, suspended after 12 years for probation. On June 13, 1986, the Supreme Court affirmed Wolf's conviction.
(2) Wolf has filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Under established procedure, the Court must first determine whether Wolf has met the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before the Court may consider the merits of the postconviction relief claims. Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990). The Court has determined that Wolf's motion is procedurally barred under both Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) and (i)(4).
(3) Wolf's motion, filed on March 20, 2000, clearly falls far outside the statutory three-year time limitation set forth in Rule 61 (i)(1), as his conviction became final nearly fourteen years ago. Also the grounds raised in Wolf's motion, which the Court finds to be a recitation of Wolf's version of the events and facts surrounding his crime and conviction, have also been raised previously, both in Wolf's direct appeal and in a prior motion for post-conviction relief denied by the Court on April 21, 1988. See State v. Wolf, Del. Super., Cr. A. IN P484-09-0789-Ri, Stiftel, J. (Apr. 21, 1988), Letter Op. Therefore, Wolf's motion is also procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 61(1)(4).
(4) Finally, the Court finds that Wolf's motion fails to satisfy any of the exceptions to the procedural bars set forth above.
Therefore, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Wolf is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________ Carl Goldstein, Judge
oc: Prothonotary pc: Jack W. Wolf