From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Scott

Superior Court of Delaware
Oct 9, 2002
Defendant ID No. 9802011785(R1) (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2002)

Opinion

Defendant ID No. 9802011785(R1)

October 9, 2002

Darryl K. Fountain, Esquire


Dear Mr. Fountain:

I have had the opportunity to review the Motion for Postconviction Relief filed with the Prothonotary's Office on October 3, 2002. I have studied it together with the defendant's file and the docket. The Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.

Defendant was convicted on October 26, 1998 of the offenses of attempted robbery in the first degree, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, assault in the second degree and terroristic threatening. He was sentenced on December 11, 1998.

Subsequently on appeal the defendant's conviction was affirmed. Lee M. Scott v. State, Del. Supr., No. 544, 1998, Veasey, C.J. (Aug. 16, 1999) (ORDER). The remanded affirmance was returned to this Court on September 1, 1999.

The first ground raised is that the trial court denied a request for a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree. This claim is procedurally barred for two reasons. First, it is barred under Rule 61(i)(1) in that the Motion for Postconviction Relief comes after three years from the date this case was returned to Superior Court.

The second reason it is barred is that this specific issue has been adjudicated by both the Superior Court and affirmed in the Supreme Court appeal. Therefore, it is barred under Rule 61(i)(4).

The second ground alleged is that the defendant's trial counsel was ineffective in that he produced no witnesses on behalf of Mr. Scott. This ground is likewise procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(1) in that it was past the three year time period permitted for postconviction attacks.

Nor should this bar be considered because there has been no 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 conviction. The allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are conclusory. The allegation does not support the finding that there was some deficient performance on behalf of the defendant's trial counsel which fell below an objective standard, nor is it a showing of any prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, (1984).

Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

State v. Scott

Superior Court of Delaware
Oct 9, 2002
Defendant ID No. 9802011785(R1) (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:RE: STATE v. LEE M. SCOTT

Court:Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Oct 9, 2002

Citations

Defendant ID No. 9802011785(R1) (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2002)