Opinion
ID No. 81030173DI (R-9).
October 5, 2010.
Dear Mr. Teagle:
On September 29, 2010, the Prothonotary's Office received your Motion for Postconviction Relief filed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61").
You are serving a lengthy sentence arising from convictions for two counts of first degree rape, two counts of first degree kidnaping, one count of attempted first degree rape, two counts of burglary in the second degree, and three counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.
Because you were convicted in 1981 (i.e., 29 years ago), it is difficult to put together a full and complete history of your case, and, in fact, same is unnecessary as to the disposition of your present motion.
It appears your last Rule 61 motion was affirmed on April 17, 2000. The Supreme Court, in affirming this Court's denial of your Postconviction Motion, noted it was your eighth Postconviction Motion. It involved claims of "newly discovered evidence". The Court noted "Over the years, Teagle has raised numerous postconviction relief claims in both federal and state courts". Teagle v. State, 2000 WL 949646, at *1 (Del.), 755 A.2d 390 (Del. 2000) (TABLE).
Your first three Motions predated Rule 61 and were filed pursuant to then Superior Court Criminal Rule 35.
The present motion is deja vu all over again. You repackage your old claims. These old claims include ineffective assistance of counsel, discovery violations, Brady violations, insufficiency of evidence, and attacks on the FBI blood analysis.
Pursuant to Rule 61(i), this motion is procedurally barred based upon its age, being repetitive, and also because these claims have been previously adjudicated.
Your motions have been denied by Judges Claude Tease, William B. Chandler, III, William Swain Lee, and me. My first denial was in 1991 when I likewise dismissed your Motion for these same three reasons.
Your eighth Motion for Postconviction Relief is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.