Summary
holding that one who pleads guilty gives up "the right to challenge the evidence presented against him."
Summary of this case from State v. WhittingtonOpinion
I.D. No. 30007317DI.
Submitted: January 22, 2001.
Decided: January 30, 2001.
Upon defendant's motion for postconviction relief. Summarily Dismissed.
ORDER
This day of January, 2001, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On September 26, 1995, Defendant, Ricardo Moreno, pleaded guilty but mentally ill to Murder, Second Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. On December 1, 1995, the Court sentenced Moreno to a total of twenty years level 5 incarceration.
(2) Moreno has now filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Moreno lists one ground for relief in his motion, newly discovered evidence. Specifically, Moreno claims that he was "not informed of his right to consular notification and access, in violation of customary international law, secured by Article VI of the United States Constitution." Moreno claims that, as a result, he made incriminating statements to police which prejudiced him in the proceedings against him.
(3) Under established procedure, the Court must first determine whether Moreno has met the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before the Court may consider the merits of the postconviction relief claims. Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990). The Court has determined that Moreno's motion is procedurally barred under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). Moreno's motion, filed on January 9, 2001 falls outside the statutory three-year time limitation set forth in Rule 61(i)(1), as his conviction became final more than five years ago.
(4) Moreno claims, however, that consideration of his claim is warranted under Rule 61(i)(5), which states that the procedural bar contained in Rule 61(i)(1) is inapplicable, "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 a judgment of conviction." Moreno argues that consideration of his claim is warranted under the "fundamental fairness" provision of Rule 61(i)(5) because he only recently became aware of his right to consular notification.
(5) The Court finds that Moreno has not overcome the procedural bar of Rule 61(i)(1). Moreno pleaded guilty to the charges against him, and as a result, gave up his constitutional right to a trial. Sheppard v. State, Del. Supr., 367 A.2d 992, 994 (1976).Consequently, Moreno also gave up the right to challenge the evidence presented against him, including any statements he made to police. Therefore, even if the Court were to find that Moreno has otherwise raised a colorable claim of a constitutional violation, the Court cannot find that the alleged violation in any way undermined the fairness of the proceedings against him.
Therefore, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Moreno is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.