Opinion
Cr.A. No. IN9803178103.
Date submitted: May 5, 1999.
Date decided: May 18, 1999. Motion Denied: February 8, 2000
ORDER
Upon review of Movant Donald Adams ("Defendant")'s Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record, it appears to the Court:
1) On May 6, 1998, Defendant plead guilty to Possession of Heroin. The State dropped all remaining charges. On February 5, 1999, at Defendant's Violation of Probation hearing, Defendant was sentenced, effective December 30, 1998, to Level V for a period of one year. Participate in Level V treatment at Key or New Hope as appropriate. Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the sentence is suspended for three months at Level III. 95-03-0151, 95-06-0158, 95-08-1031, 1076 and 95-09-0321 are reimposed to run consecutive. On May 5, 1999, Movant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
2) In this motion, Defendant asserts: (1) that the probation officer was dishonest; (2) that the public defender did not say what Defendant asked him to say; and (3) that his sentence is not proper for the crime he committed. Defendant does not point to any specific facts in his motion regarding these allegations.
3) When considering a motion for postconviction relief, this Court must apply the procedural requirements before considering the merits of the claim. Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 553 (1990), citing Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 265 (1989); State v. Flowers, Del. Super., C.A. No. 930020980DI, Barron, J., (Nov. 6, 1995). This Court ordinarily should not consider the merits of postconviction claims where a procedural bar exists. Younger, 580 A.2d at 554, Flowers, supra at 1.
4) This Court will not address Rule 61 claims that are conclusory and unsubstantiated. See Younger, 580 A.2d at 555; State v. Conlow, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. IN78-09-0985R1, Herlihy, J. (Oct. 5, 1990) at 5; State v. Gallo, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. IN87-03-0589-0594, Gebelein, J. (Sept. 2, 1988) at 10. Pursuant to Rule 61(a), a motion for post conviction relief must be based on "a sufficient factual and legal basis." In addition, pursuant to Rule 61(b)(2), "[t]he motion shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to movant. . ., and shall be set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified." Defendant has failed to set forth with specificity and supporting facts his claim.
5) Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant's claims are procedurally barred because movant fails to provide the Court with any facts or references to substantiate the allegations and should the merits ever be addressed in this case, the record indicates to the Court that the grounds for postconviction relief that movant asserts are unsubstantiated. This Court, therefore, denies this petition for relief
Based upon the foregoing, Donald Adams, Jr.'s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.