Opinion
ID #0802023045 ID #0002006781
12-16-2014
RE: State v. Ryan Steck
T. HENLEY GRAVES RESIDENT JUDGE State Mail - N440
Mr. Ryan Steck
SBI#002
Sussex Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 500
Georgetown, DE 19947
Motion for Postconviction Relief - R1
Dear Mr. Steck:
On December 3, 2014 the Court received Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief filed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. ("Rule 61"). There are multiple grounds alleged, but all pertain to the problems in the Office of the Medical Examiner. ("O.M.E.")
Background
The Defendant's history on these cases is extensive. In the last sentencing order for being in violation of probation, all of the 2008 charges were discharged as unimproved. The 2000 delivery sentence was likewise discharged as unimproved. This took place on July 18, 2014 and the Defendant was sentenced to one (1) year Level 5 pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) and then discharged as to the 2000 trafficking offense.
Therefore, Defendant's only "live" sentence is on the 2000 conviction to which he pled guilty on May 16, 2000. Defendant admitted he was guilty of trafficking in cocaine. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the Defendant is bound by his representations to the Court and his admission that he was in the cocaine business. The evidence of pilfering or theft of drugs at the O.M.E. in 2014 does not raise any inference of misconduct occurring fourteen (14) years earlier in this case. Further, since Defendant pled guilty at his first Case Review, it is doubtful that the drugs in this case were ever tested at the O.M.E.
THEREFORE, based upon the Defendant's admissions and the fact that his guilty plea occurred fourteen (14) years ago, the Motion for Postconviction Relief is summarily dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ T. Henley Graves
T. Henley Graves
THG/ymp
pc: Prothonotary
John Donahue, Esquire
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).