Opinion
No. 57, 1999.
September 7, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Sussex County, CrA IN93-07-0453-0457.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
VICTOR KNOWLES, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 57, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 3, 1999. Decided: September 7, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, § Cr.A. Nos. IN93-07-0453-0457.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices
ORDER
This 7th day of September 1999, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Victor Knowles ("Knowles"), filed this appeal from an order of the Superior Court denying his fourth motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
(2) In this appeal, Knowles claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion, first, in failing to decide his motion for postconviction relief on the merits and, second, in deciding his motion for postconviction relief summarily and without holding an evidentiary hearing.
(3) Following a jury trial, Knowles was convicted of various sex crimes and sentenced to a period of incarceration and probation. This Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.
(4) When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, this Court must first determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule before addressing any substantive issues. Rule 61(i) (1) prohibits claims that are filed more than three years after the judgment of conviction is final. Knowles' claims were brought more than three years after his judgment of conviction and, therefore, are time-barred. Knowles has failed to show that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or any colorable claim of a constitutional violation sufficient to overcome the time bar of Rule 61(i) (1).
(5) Knowles' second claim is that the Superior Court should not have decided his motion summarily and without holding an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the Superior Court was obligated to issue more than a summary decision citing to the time and procedural bars of Rule 61. The Superior Court issued a decision that provided the rationale for its ruling, however, which is all that is required. This portion of Knowles' claim, therefore, is without merit. Knowles' contention that the Superior Court should have held an evidentiary hearing also is unavailing. This issue was not raised in the Superior Court in the first instance and will not be considered by this Court for the first time on appeal. Even if the issue had been raised below, the Superior Court was within its discretion to summarily dispose of this matter without an evidentiary hearing.
Knowles v. State, Del. Supr., No. 166, 1994, Berger, J. (Apr. 7, 1995) (ORDER).
Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991).
Winn v. State, Del. Supr., No. 521, 1997, Veasey, C.J., 1998 WL 515166 (July 6, 1998) (ORDER) (citing Derrickson v. State, Del. Supr., 399 A.2d 202 (1979)).
Supr. Ct. R. 8.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h) (3).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice