Opinion
ID 9808003211.
February 25, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Pretrial Motions Under Rule 48 MOTIONS DENIED AS IMPROPERLY FILED.
Christina M. Showalter, Esquire, Department of Justice, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
John S. Edinger, Esquire, Public Defender's Office, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, 5th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801
Henry Foster, Delaware Corrections Center, P.O. Box 500, Smyrna, DE 19977
Dear Ms. Showalter, Mr. Edinger, and Mr. Foster:
It appears that by two separate mailings, one of which was filed with the Prothonotary on January 6, 2000 and one of which was mailed directly to me and was received on January 7, 2000, the Defendant individually filed "Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 48(B)." Much of the attack is made against his Defense Counsel. Unfortunately, I did not read either document prior to the Defendant's trial on January 11 and 12, 2000, wherein he was convicted. Indeed, I did not even have possession of the letter to the Prothonotary prior to trial. And the letter sent directly to me was probably sent to the Prothonotary for filing and the Prothonotary probably returned both in normal course, but not until after the trial. I do not recall anything being said about the documents at trial. The Defendant did not testify and he was convicted by the jury under half of the Counts in the Indictment that were submitted to the jury (four Counts having been dismissed by the Court). While many people were copied in the correspondence, the Prosecutor and Defense Counsel were not.
I consider the Motions to be improper under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47 and therefore DENY any relief thereunder. IT IS SO ORDERED. One reason for the Rule is to assume orderly communications. Nonetheless, I do regret that I did not bring the correspondence to Counsel's attention prior to trial, but it is simply not feasible to keep current with prisoner mail on a regular basis and the relativity of this mail to a scheduled trial was not appreciated. I would ask Defense Counsel to review the correspondence prior to sentencing to see if any application is appropriate. While it is difficult to decipher all the points discussed in the pro se Motions, the Court will consider any appropriate application under the Rules.
Sincerely,
William T. Quillen