Opinion
ID No. 0211004458 (R-1).
November 28, 2006.
N440 — State Mail, William A. Waltman, SBI No., Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, DE 19947.
Dear Mr. Waltman:
Your Motion for Postconviction Relief, having been considered by the Court, is denied as procedurally barred.
Your Motion contains two grounds, both of which attack the decisions made by the court in twice denying requests for a continuance in order that another attorney represent you at trial.
You were arrested on November 10, 2002 for robbery in the first degree, carjacking in the first degree, possession of a deadly weapon during a felony, assault in the second degree, conspiracy, and vehicular assault in the second degree.
Following arraignment, your case review took place on February 3, 2003. At that date, the final case review was scheduled for March 19, 2003 and your jury trial was scheduled for March 24, 2003.
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, your attorney, Karl Haller, Esquire, asked that you have more time to consider the plea. The Criminal Office Judge granted your request and moved the final case review to Friday, March 21, 2003. No problems or complaints were raised as to Mr. Haller's representation of you. On Friday, the Court was informed that Edward Gill, Esquire was being retained. Mr. Haller reported "Mr. Gill's instruction to this young man was to come over and request a continuance so that Mr. Gill could get into the case . . .".
The State opposed the continuance, noting that the Defendant had four months "to figure out the counsel situation". The docket evidences the case was over 120 days old. The Criminal Office Judge denied the continuance as the trial was scheduled for the next business day.
On Monday, March 24, 2003, Mr. Gill, who did not enter his appearance, addressed the Court and requested a continuance. I noted that the Criminal Office Judge had made a decision on Friday denying the continuance and that a jury was waiting in another courtroom for cases to be tried. I also denied the continuance request. Mr. Haller continued to be the Defendant's attorney.
The Defendant was tried and found guilty of all counts except the vehicular assault charge.
He retained the services of Mr. Gill for his appeal. The conviction was affirmed. Waltman v. State, 2003 WL23104199 (Del. Dec. 30, 2003).
On appeal, the Supreme Court directly addressed Mr. Whitman's present complaints about not getting a continuance.
A sense of deja vu pervades this case. A continuance denied is renewed the next business day to another judge. The complaint about not getting a continuance is unsuccessful at the Supreme Court. The Defendant now raises the same complaint in his Rule 61 application.
Since this issue has been previously adjudicated by the Delaware Supreme Court, the application is procedurally barred pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4).
The Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.