Opinion
Def. ID# 1101020478
08-26-2019
Re: Motion for Postconviction Relief - R3
Robert R. Meades
SBI# 00124648
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977 Dear Mr. Meades:
This is my decision on your third motion for postconviction relief. Your motion seeks for the Court to vacate your guilty plea and sentence on the grounds that the Court never held a competency hearing to determine whether you were capable of knowingly and intelligently entering such a plea. You allege that you were incompetent "at all relevant times" as evidenced by your treatment and stay at the Delaware Psychiatric Center.
When faced with a claim for postconviction relief I must first determine whether any procedural bars prevent a consideration on the merits of any underlying arguments. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, governing postconviction relief, states that all such motions beyond the first must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and either (1) pleads that new evidence exists showing that the movant is actually innocent in fact, or (2) pleads that a new, retroactive constitutional rule applies to the movant's case thereby rendering the conviction invalid.
You were not convicted after a trial. You plead guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony on January 4, 2012. Accordingly, the procedural bars of Rule 61 require that your motion be summarily dismissed. I am therefore barred from considering your third motion for postconviction relief on the merits.
CONCLUSION
Your third motion for postconviction relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/
E. Scott Bradley ESB:tll cc: Prothonotary's Office
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).