Opinion
Cr.A. Nos. IK91-06-0816-R1, IK91-06-0817-R1.
Submitted: March 3, 2000.
Decided: March 17, 2000.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, the defendant's objections to the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) Following a ten day jury trial the defendant, Keith Warren ("Warren") was found guilty of Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony. He was sentenced to life in prison without probation or parole on May 1, 1992. On appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, Warren raised three claims: 1) failure of the Court to give a Deberry lost evidence instruction; 2) improper admission of evidence in violation of D.R.E. 404(b); and 3) failing to dismiss the indictment because a baseball bat is not a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed Warren's convictions and thereafter issued its mandate on April 27, 1993.
Warren v. State, Del. Supr., No. 218, 1992, Horsey, J. (April 8, 1993) (ORDER).
On May 27, 1994 Warren filed a motion for a new trial and for appointment of counsel. David Jones, Esquire, was appointed by the Court to represent Warren in his Motion for a New Trial. In the Amended Motion for a New Trial, Warren alleged that a prosecution witness, George Randy Goodlett ("Goodlett"), stated that his trial testimony was false. The motion was denied by this Court and no appeal was taken. Over four and a half years after the issuance of the Supreme Court's mandate, Warren filed the pending petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
State v. Warren, Del. Super., IK91-06-0816, Ridgely, P.J. (May 31, 1995) (ORDER). adopting Commissioner's Report Recommendation, A.M. Maybee, C. (May 12, 1995).
(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Maybee 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 barred by the time limit of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) and Rule 61(i)(3) and (4).
(3) Warren has filed written objections to the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation after receiving an extension of time to do so. He contends that the Commissioner erred in her statement of the facts and alleges that his counsel was ineffective.
(4) Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62, the Court has conducted a careful and de novo determination. It is undisputed that Warren's motion was filed more than three years after the Supreme Court's mandate. The Court finds that all of Warren's claims are procedurally barred. Contrary to Warren's contention, I do not find an evidentiary hearing to be necessary to decide the issues in this case.
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 13, 2000,
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 DENIED .