Opinion
I.D. No. 9712003463.
June 6, 2007.
John E. Miller, DE.
Dear Mr. Miller:
In consideration of your Ninth Motion for Postconviction Relief, this Court Summarily Dismisses your motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4). You raise two grounds for relief in this motion. The first is your claim that you received ineffective assistance of counsel and the second is your claim that the Supreme Court of Delaware did not properly consider your appeal of a previous motion. Your claim that you did not receive effective assistance of counsel, although slightly repackaged, directly implicates issues which have been thoroughly considered by this court and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it plainly appears from your motion and the voluminous record of prior proceedings that both of your claims for postconviction relief la ck merit. Based on the foregoing, Your Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
The Court notes that the Supreme Court of Delaware has admonished a defendant for filing repetitive and frivolous motions for postconviction relief. See State v. Johnson, 768 A.2d 469 (Del. 2000). Your ninth motion for postconviction relief, by any measure, can only be characterized as repetitive and frivolous. Id. at *2.
State v. Miller, 2006 WL 1148679 (Del.Super.Ct. Jan. 5, 2006), aff'd, 901 A.2d 120 (Del. 2006); State v. Miller, IN97-12-0663-R1, Herlihy, J. (Del.Super.Ct. Dec.2, 2002), aff'd, 840 A.2d 1229 (Del. 2003).
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.