Opinion
1101020478
02-01-2024
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. Robert R. Meades, Defendant.
John Donahue, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware. Robert R. Meades, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Georgetown, Delaware Pro Se.
Submitted: January 22, 2024
Upon Consideration of Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence, DENIED.
John Donahue, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.
Robert R. Meades, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Georgetown, Delaware Pro Se.
ORDER
Mark H. Conner, Judge
This 1st day of February, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant's second Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 motion, it appears to the Court that:
1) The Defendant, Robert R. Meades, filed a Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a). It should also be noted he filed his fourth Rule 61 motion on January 18, 2024. Both motions essentially allege he was not competent to understand the plea proceedings. These claims were denied by this Court in his first Rule 61 motion and subsequent Rule 61 motions.
State v. Robert Meades. 223 A.3d 416 (Del. 2019).
2) Rule 35(a) motions are limited to only allegations of errors with the sentence itself. It "is not an appropriate means to argue alleged errors in the underlying conviction." Also, Rule 35(a) cannot be invoked to re-litigate his Rule 61 claims that were previously denied. The Court finds this is exactly what the Defendant is attempting by filing this Rule 35(a) motion.
Nichols v. State, 913 A.2d 570 (Del. 2006).
Id.
Laboy v. State. 871 A.2d 1128 (Del. 2005).
Four the reasons stated above, the Defendant's Rule 35(a) Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.