Opinion
No. 554, 2001
Decided: February 4, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County in Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 Def. ID No. 0004009247.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
CURTIS G. ELLIOTT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 554, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 20, 2001 Decided: February 4, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
Randy J. Holland, Justice:
ORDER
This 4th day of February 2002, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Curtis Elliott, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's order of October 17, 2001, that denied Elliott's third motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the basis that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) On October 26, 2000, Elliott pled guilty to Assault in the Second Degree. After a pre-sentence investigation, Elliott was sentenced to eight years at Level V, suspended after four years, for decreasing levels of probation. Thereafter, Elliott asked the Superior Court to modify his sentence. The Superior Court denied Elliott's request, however, as well as Elliott's subsequent requests for reconsideration. The Superior Court also denied two prior postconviction motions filed by Elliott. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Elliott's second postconviction motion.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the State dismissed three companion charges of Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, and Misdemeanor Theft.
See State v. Elliott, Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 (Del.Super.Ct. Jan. 18, 2001) (denying motion for sentence modification); State v. Elliott, Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 (Del.Super.Ct. Jan. 30, 2001) (denying request for reconsideration); State v. Elliott, Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 (Del.Super.Ct. Mar. 23, 2001) (denying request for reconsideration).
See State v. Elliott, Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 (Del.Super.Ct. April 27, 2001) (denying first postconviction motion); State v. Elliott, Cr.A. No. PS00-04-0556 (Del.Super.Ct. May 23, 2001) (denying second postconviction motion).
Elliott v. State, No. 270, 2001, 2001 WL 1381235 (Del. Aug. 23, 2001). Elliott did not file an appeal from the denial of his first postconviction motion.
(3) When reviewing the Superior Court's denial of a postconviction motion pursuant to Rule 61, this Court must first determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule before addressing any substantive issues. The Superior Court's denial of a defendant's motion for postconviction relief is typically reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996).
Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527 (Del. 2000).
(4) In his third postconviction motion, and now on appeal, Elliott alleges, as he did in his second postconviction motion and in a motion for reargument, that his counsel's ineffectiveness caused him to enter an involuntary guilty plea. Because the Superior Court previously considered this claim, the claim is now procedurally barred as repetitive and as formerly adjudicated. Elliott has offered no reason why reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice. Moreover, Elliott has not demonstrated that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or that there was a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when denying Elliott's third motion for postconviction relief.
Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(2).
Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(4).
Id.
Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(5).
(5) It is manifest on the face of Elliott's opening brief that this appeal is without merit. The issues presented on appeal clearly are controlled by settled Delaware law, and to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.