Opinion
Def. ID No. 91003457DI
Submitted: April 22, 1999
Decided: August 24, 1999 Motions Denied: February 8, 2000.
ORDER
This is the Court's decision on Defendant Robert E. Ashley ("Defendant")'s Motion for Return of Property confiscated by prison officials and for extension of time. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was arrested and charged in March 1991 with Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of both crimes. He was sentenced on April 3, 1992. Defendant is incarcerated in the Maximum Security Unit of the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC") at Smyrna, Delaware.
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief on September 19, 1996. This Court ordered that Defendant's prior counsel and the State file an affidavit and legal memorandum, respectively, in response to Defendant's motion. Defendant's prior counsel filed an affidavit on July 28, 1998. The Department of Justice filed a legal memorandum on February 16, 1999. As a result of the time span between Defendant's filing of the motion postconviction relief and the responses by counsel, this Court informed Defendant by letter that he would be permitted to file a response by April 21, 1999. Instead of a response by Defendant directed at documents previously filed by counsel pursuant to Court Order, on April 22, 1999, Defendant filed several motions, including the herein addressed motions for return of property and extension of time.
The first six pages of Defendant's motion reiterates allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that will be addressed in this Court's Order regarding Defendant's motion for postconviction relief.
Defendant alleges in his motion that prison guards at DCC arbitrarily confiscated various legal materials of Defendant's regarding this immediate matter of postconviction relief. Defendant claims to have filed a grievance and to have had a hearing on his grievance.
It is true that the Constitution protects a prisoner from arbitrary seizure of or interference with items of personal property by state officials acting under color of state law. Therefore, a prison must have reason to seize property from an inmate and will record such seizure and reason therefor. However, there is no record of a "shake-down" or confiscation of Defendant's property conducted by prison guards at DCC as Defendant alleges. Neither is there a record of such activity on either November 18, 1998 or November 20, 1998.
Thornton v. Redman, D.Del., 435 F. Supp. 876, 880 (1977), citing Hamilton v. Redman, Del. Super., C.A. No. 86C-SE-38, 86M-SE-1, Gebelein, J. (Apr. 19, 1988) (Mem. Op.).
Moreover, there is no record of a grievance having been filed by Defendant as he alleges. It is the practice of the DCC to record and file all grievances filed by an inmate. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the absence of a November 19, 1998 recorded grievance by Defendant indicates that no such formal grievance was filed.
In light of the Court's disposition of the motion for return of property and the previously issued denials of Defendants motions for a transcript and a certified copy of the record, Defendant's motion for extension of time is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
As a result of the foregoing, Defendant's motions for return of property and for extension of time are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.