State v. Bailey

Full title: RE: State of Delaware v. Julie L. Bailey

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Date published: Jan 26, 2016

Def. ID# 0409005305 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2016)

Opinion

Def. ID# 0409005305

01-26-2016

RE: State of Delaware v. Julie L. Bailey

RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE

RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Julie Bailey
SBI No. 369990 Baylor Women's Correctional Institution
660 Baylor Blvd.
New Castle, DE 19720 Dear Ms. Bailey:

Pending before the Court is the motion for postconviction relief which Defendant Julie Bailey ("Defendant") has filed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61").

On October 21, 2005, following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of Murder by Abuse of Neglect. She was sentenced on December 19, 2005. Defendant filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on January 13, 2006. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court's decision and the judgment of conviction became final on May 14, 2007. On August 7, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. This motion was denied.

Over eight years later, on December 22, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief. In that motion, Defendant asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a deprivation of her ability to accept a plea agreement.

The motion was not filed within a year of when the judgment of conviction was final, and therefore, it is time-barred.¹ To avoid that bar, Defendant either must have:

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) ("Time limitation. A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final or, if it asserts a retroactively applicable right that is newly recognized after the judgment of conviction is final, more than one year after the right is first recognized by the Supreme Court of Delaware or by the United States Supreme Court.").

(i) [pled] . . . with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which [she] was convicted; or

(ii) [pled] . . . with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant's case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.²

Defendant has failed to make this showing. Defendant's motion is time-barred, and consequently, is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). --------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/Richard F. Stokes

Richard F. Stokes cc: Prothonotary's Office

Melanie C. Withers, Esquire

Thomas A. Pedersen, Esquire