State v. Allen, Cr.A. No. IN-98-03-1152

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. Walter A. ALLEN, JR., DOB: 9-3-79, Def. ID No…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Apr 27, 1999

Cr. A. No. IN-98-03-1152 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 1999)

Opinion

Cr. A. No. IN-98-03-1152

Submitted: April 14, 1999

Decided: April 27, 1999 Motion Denied: February 8, 2000

ORDER

GEBELEIN, J.

Upon review of Movant Walter A. Allen, Jr. ("Defendant")'s Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record, it appears to the Court:

1) On November 20, 1998, Movant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on a plea to Forgery Second Degree.

2) On May 5, 1998, Movant pleaded guilty to two counts of Forgery Second Degree. The State dropped all remaining charges.

3) On September 10, 1998, Movant filed a Motion for Modification of Order. This Court Ordered that restitution was not ordered and that in all other respects, the Order dated May 5, 1998 shall remain the same.

4) In this motion, Defendant asserts that: (1) he was told by his Public Defender that he would be incarcerated for his violation of probation and would receive additional incarceration time if he continued to court on the Forgery charges; (2) that he thought he was in a preliminary hearing after he signed a paper stating "I understand my rights" pursuant to his plea agreement; and (3) after he signed his plea agreement to two counts of Forgery 2^nd, a violation of probation charge was added of which Defendant was unaware.

5) In reviewing motions for postconviction relief, the Court must first determine whether a defendant's claims are barred by procedural requirements prior to addressing the merits of the underlying claims.¹

1 Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991); Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990).

6) Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal 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."

7) The Court will not review the allegations on their merits because the claims are barred by Rule 61(b)(2) which requires that the content of a postconviction relief motion "set forth in summary form the facts supporting . . . the grounds thus specified." Accordingly, this Court will not address Rule 61 claims that are conclusory and unsubstantiated.²

2 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.

8) Furthermore, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4), "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal . . ."

9) The Court finds that defendant's claims are procedurally barred. Movant does not provide the Court with any facts or references to substantiate the allegations. Moreover, should the merits 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 relief.

Based upon the foregoing, Walter A. Allen, Jr.'s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.