Opinion
Cr. A. No: IN 80-01-0332 R2.
Date submitted: August 7, 2000.
Date decided: September 25, 2000.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief: DENIED.
ORDER
Upon review of Defendant Elmer Daniels' fourth motion for postconviction relief and the record, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant Elmer Daniels was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendant subsequently filed unsuccessful petitions for federal habeas corpus relief and state postconviction relief. This Court denied the state postconviction relief motion and it was affirmed on appeal. In February 1997, Defendant moved a second time for state postconviction relief; and again the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's denial of Defendant's motion. On November 18, 1999, this Court denied Defendant's third postconviction relief motion.
Daniels v. State, Del. Supr., No. 173, 1980, McNeilly, J. (Aug. 13, 1981) (ORDER).
Daniels v. State, Del. Supr., No. 91, 1983, Moore, J. (July 25, 1983) (ORDER).
Daniels v. State, Del. Supr., 702 A.2d 925 (1997).
2. In this motion, Defendant requests postconviction relief upon the grounds that "grouping tests conducted were inconclusive."
3. 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. Rule 61(i)(l) provides, in part, that a motion for postconviction relief "may not be filed more than three years after the judgment of conviction is final. . . ." A criminal conviction does not become final until the issuance of the Supreme Court's order affirming the conviction.
Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991); Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990).
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (emphasis added).
Younger, 580 A.2d at 554.
4. In this case, Defendant filed his fourth motion for postconviction relief on July 26, 2000, more than eighteen years after an August 13, 1981 mandate was issued affirming his conviction. Consequently, because Defendant's Rule 61 motion was filed "more than three years" after his conviction became final, this Court finds that his claims are procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(l).
Based upon the foregoing, Elmer Daniels' Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein
Orig: Prothonotary cc: Elmer Daniels