Opinion
Def. ID# 0612007619 ( R-1)
07-02-2015
RE: State of Delaware v. Terrance B. Puckham
Terrance B. Puckham SBI# 002 James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977
RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Terrance B. Puckham
SBI# 002
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977
Dear Mr. Puckham:
Pending before the Court is the motion for postconviction relief which defendant Terrance B. Puckham ("defendant") has filed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). The applicable version of Rule 61 is that effective June 4, 2014. Also pending are defendant's motions for appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis/request for transcripts to be used in connection with the Rule 61 motion.
A copy of that version is enclosed herein.
On October 2, 2007, defendant pled guilty to charges of attempted murder in the first degree; rape in the first degree, facilitated or occurring during the commission of the crime of attempted murder in the first degree; possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony; and endangering the welfare of a child. He was sentenced on November 30, 2007. Defendant did not file an appeal from that judgment; consequently, the judgment was final as of November 30, 2007.
Over seven and a half years later, on June 30, 2015, defendant filed his first postconviction motion. In that motion, he asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The motion was not filed within a year of when the judgment of conviction was final, and thus, it is time-barred. To avoid that bar, defendant either must have:
Under the July 1, 2005 version of Rule 61 in effect at the time defendant pled and was sentenced, he was required to file his Rule 61 motion within one year of when the judgment of conviction was final.
Rule 61(i)(1).
(I) [pled] ... with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or
(ii) [pled] ... with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant's case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.
Rule 61(i)(5); Rule 61(d)(2). --------
Defendant has failed to make this showing. Defendant's motion is time-barred, and consequently, is DISMISSED. Furthermore, because the Rule 61 motion is procedurally barred, the requests for appointment of counsel and for a transcript/motion to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard F. Stokes
Richard F. Stokes
cc: Prothonotary's Office
Department of Justice
John Daniello, Esquire