Opinion
I.D. #86013220DI.
Submitted: May 17, 2005.
Decided: August 2, 2005.
Upon Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Post-Conviction Relief — SUMMARILY DISMISSED
Steven Wood, Esquire, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.
Samuel Bishop, Delaware Correctional Center, Defendant, pro se.
ORDER
Before the Court is a motion for postconviction relief filed by Samuel Bishop (hereinafter the "Defendant") pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. For the reasons that follow, the Defendant's motion is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
1. In 1979, the Defendant was convicted of Rape First degree and Kidnapping First degree. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences at Level V. The Defendant appealed and on October 20, 1980, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. On October 20, 1988, the Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. On October 25, 1988, this Court dismissed the motion. On September 27, 1994, the Defendant filed a second motion for postconviction relief. On October 7, 1994, this Court dismissed the motion. On November 23, 1994, the Defendant filed a third motion for postconviction relief. On December 2, 1994, this Court dismissed the motion. On May 17, 2005, the Defendant filed the present motion for postconviction relief.
2. In a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, the Court is to apply the rules governing procedural requirements before addressing substantive claims. Rule 61(i)(1) specifically bars consideration of any claim that has been "filed more than three years after the judgement of conviction is final."
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del.Super.Ct. 1990).
See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1). Rule 61 was amended to bar all claims filed more than one year after the judgement of conviction is final. This amendment is in effect for all cases in which the judgement of conviction became final after July 1, 2005.
3. In this motion, the Defendant raises the claim that he was denied DNA testing when it became available after his conviction. More than three years have passed since the judgement of conviction in this case and therefore, the current motion for postconviction relief is time-barred. Furthermore, the Defendant has failed to satisfy the requirements of 11 Del. C. § 4504 and therefore fails to meet the criteria for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. As a result, the Court will not address the claim and the claim is Summarily Dismissed.
See 11 Del. C. § 4504.
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4) ("If 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 and cause the movant to be notified.").
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.