Opinion
IK97-10-0448-R1, IK97-10-0451-R1 ID No. 9704012286
March 5, 2002
ORDER
On this 5th day of March, 2002, upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On January 25, 1999 Defendant William G. Summers ("Summers") was found guilty by a jury of one count of Robbery in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 832; one count of Assault in the Third Degree, 11 Del. C. § 611(1); and one count of Misdemeanor Theft, 11 Del. C. § 841. On April 19, 1999 the State filed a motion to declare Summers an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214 (b). The motion was heard by the Court on October 29, 1999. Following the hearing the Court declared Summers an habitual offender and sentenced him, pursuant to the statute, to life imprisonment. A timely notice of appeal was filed with the Delaware Supreme Court. In his appeal, Summers claimed that the Superior Court erred in sentencing him under the habitual offender statute, that the statute was disproportionate and that the sentence for the theft conviction was incorrect. The Supreme Court affirmed Summers' conviction and sentence as a habitual offender. The Court however, held that the misdemeanor theft charge was inclusive of the robbery charge. The Court then ruled that the conviction and sentence for the theft charge be stricken and remanded the matter to the Superior Court. The Superior Court subsequently voided the theft conviction and sentence.
Summers v. State, Del. Supr., No. 563, 1999, Walsh, J. (Sept. 15, 2000) (Order).
Next, Summers filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In his motion, Summers alleges several grounds for relief including ineffective assistance of counsel.
(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be dismissed as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3). No objections to the Report have been filed.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated January 28, 2002,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(A) The well-reasoned Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court;
(B) The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DISMISSED.