Opinion
Cr. A. No. VN94-05-1069R1
Submitted: July 17, 2001
Decided: July 18, 2001
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Summarily Dismissed. I.D. No. 9405004607
ORDER
This 18th day of July, 2001, upon consideration of the defendant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On August 10, 1994, Defendant, Douglas W. Arnold, pleaded guilty to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Third Degree. On October 7, 1994, the Court sentenced Defendant to five years Level 5 incarceration, suspended after one year, for the balance at Level 4 incarceration, suspended after three months for the balance at Level 3 probation.
(2) On November 19, 1999, the Court adjudged Defendant of violating the terms of his probation. The Court sentenced Defendant to four years Level S incarceration, followed by six months Level 3 probation.
This was Defendant's second violation of probation.
(3) Defendant has now filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Defendant lists as grounds for relief in his petition ineffective assistance of counsel and "suppression of favorable evidence." Under established procedure, the Court must first determine whether Defendant has met the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before the Court may consider the merits of the postconviction relief claims. Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990). This is Defendant's first motion for postconviction relief and the Court determines that none of the procedural bars listed in Rule 61(i) are applicable. Therefore, the Court may consider the merits of Defendant's motion.
(4) However, Rule 61(b)(2) provides that any motion filed under the rule "shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds" specified in the motion. Accordingly, this Court will not address postconviction claims that are conclusory and unsubstantiated. State v. Wright, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN98-08-0228, Gebelein, J. (June 3, 1999), Order at 3 (citations omitted).
(5) The Court finds Defendant's petition fails to set forth any facts from which the Court could determine the merits of his grounds for relief In support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant states only, "the Public Defender didn't tell me I could wait until Judge Witham give sentencing." In support of his claim of suppression of favorable evidence, Defendant states, "I have compled [sic] with sex offender treatment under probation."
Therefore, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.