Opinion
Def. ID No. 0009015005 (R-2).
Date Submitted: November 13, 2007.
December 14, 2007.
James St. Louis, Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, DE.
Dear Mr. St. Louis:
Pending before the Court is a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61") which James St. Louis ("defendant") has filed. This is my decision denying the motion as procedurally barred.
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of the charges of rape in the first degree involving his step-daughter, a victim less than twelve years old, in violation of 11 Del. C. § 773(a)(5) and continuous sexual abuse of a child in violation of 11 Del. C. § 778. On June 22, 2001, defendant was sentenced as follows. As to the rape in the first degree conviction, he was sentenced to thirty (30) years at Level 5 and after serving twenty (20) years, fifteen (15) years of which were mandatory, at Level 5, the balance was suspended for probation. As to the conviction for continuous sexual abuse, he was sentenced to ten (10) years at Level 5, and after serving a mandatory two (2) years at Level 5, the balance was suspended for probation.
Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which found no error and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. State v. St. Louis, Del. Supr., No. 323, 2001, Steele, J. (May 24, 2002). Defendant thereafter filed his first Rule 61 motion which contained numerous allegations, including ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court denied that motion. State v. St. Louis, Del. Super., Def. ID# 0009015005, Stokes, J. (Sept. 22, 2004). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision on appeal.St. Louis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 446, 2004, Steele, C.J. (March 1, 2005).
On November 13, 2007, defendant filed his pending Rule 61 motion. That motion contained numerous allegations that trial counsel was ineffective.
The first step the Court takes when reviewing such a motion is to determine if any procedural bars exist; the Court only considers the merits of claims which are not procedurally barred by Rule 61(i). Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
The version of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) applicable to defendant's case provides as follows:
Bars to relief. (1) Time limitation. A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than three years 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 three years after the right is first recognized by the Supreme Court of Delaware or by the United States Supreme Court.
(2) Repetitive motion. Any ground for relief that was not asserted in a prior postconviction proceeding, as required by subdivision (b)(2) of this rule, is thereafter barred, unless consideration of the claim in warranted in the interest of justice.
(3) Procedural default. Any ground for relief that was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, as required by the rules of this court, is thereafter barred, unless the movant shows
(A) Cause for relief from the procedural default and
(B) Prejudice from violation of the movant's rights.
(4) Former adjudication. Any ground for relief that was formerly adjudicated, whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a postconviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, is thereafter barred, unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice.
(5) Bars inapplicable. The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subdivision shall not apply to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.
In this case, defendant's claims are time-barred; they were not brought within three years after judgment of conviction became final. Rule 61(i)(1). They also are barred because defendant failed to assert them in the first motion for postconviction relief. Rule 61(i)(2).
Defendant has not attempted to show any exceptions to the procedural bars exist. The fundamental fairness exception set forth in Rule 61(i)(5) does not apply since it is applied to the limited circumstances where the right upon which the defendant is relying was "recognized for the first time after the direct appeal." Younger v. State, 580 A.2d at 555. Furthermore, although defendant alleges, in a conclusory manner, a violation of his due process rights, defendant has failed to make any showing of a constitutional deprivation. Id. Finally, defendant has made no showing that the interests of justice require a review of the merits.Id. Where the procedural bars apply, the Court does not review the merits. Id. at 552, 554.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's second motion for postconviction relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.