Opinion
C.A. No. 9710002199
Date Submitted: October 12, 2000
Date Decided: January 31, 2001
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief DENIED.
ORDER
Upon review of Movant Daniel S. Green ("Movant")'s Motion for Postconviction Relief it appears to the Court:
1. Movant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on a conviction of Violation of Probation on April 4, 2000.
2. The Defendant was sentenced to three years at Level V suspended for six months Level IV Plummer Center, followed by the balance at Level III. The Defendant has not appealed this ruling.
3. In this motion, Movant asserts as his grounds for relief that the Court's denial of Movant's desire to present witnesses on his own behalf at the Violation of Probation Hearing was an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. Movant also asserts that there were no adverse material witnesses present at the hearing which denied his right to confront witnesses.
4. 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)(4) provides for summary dismissal by the court "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion.., and the record.. .that the movant is not entitled to relief the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal. . . ."
Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991); Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990).
5. The Court finds that defendant's claim is essentially one of the denial of the right to confront witnesses. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4), claims for postconviction relief which are entirely conclusory may be summarily dismissed on that basis.
State v. Brittingham, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. 1N91-01-1009-R1, Barron, J. (Dec. 29, 1994) (Order) at 3, citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d at 556.
6. After reviewing Movant's motion, the Court finds there are no facts whatsoever within Movant's motion which would support or indicate an abuse of discretion or a violation of due process by the Court. Movant's claims are entirely conclusory. Movant makes no assertion as to how confronting witnesses would have been beneficial to his case. He also does not explain what evidence he would have presented at the hearing, what witnesses he wanted to call, and how that evidence would have been beneficial to him. Because the defendant did not raise on direct appeal any of his postconviction claims regarding this matter, they are barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3) unless he could show cause for relief and actual prejudice. Since the Movant's claims are entirely conclusory, and shows no cause for relief and actual prejudice, the motion is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 61(d)(4).
Younger, 580 A.2d at 555-56.
For the reasons stated above, the defendant's motion for postconviction relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.