Upon Defendant's Fourth Motion for Postconviction Relief – SUMMARILY DISMISSED
1. In his fourth motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal 61, filed March 19, 2013 and amended April 9, 2013, Defendant again raises his previously litigated ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
2. This time, Defendant contends, without elaboration, that trial counsel was ineffective "for not raising [his] mental health status prior to or during the trial process[, thereby] preserving the issues for appeal." Besides being vague and procedurally barred as untimely and repetitive, this motion also fails to argue how counsel's conduct met either prong of Strickland v. Washington's,  two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. The only new claim here stems from Martinez v. Ryan. Because Defendant did not have court-appointed counsel to challenge the effectiveness of his court-appointed trial attorney, Defendant contends he is entitled to counsel and further review now.
4. By its terms, Martinez concerns the standard of review in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Martinez does not apply to state court proceedings. Moreover, Martinez is expressly non-retro active.
5. For the detailed reasons set out in its earlier decisions,  the court remains satisfied that the interests of justice do not require reconsideration of Defendant's claim. Appointing another lawyer, at taxpayer expense, to try and rebut the general presumption and the specific finding that Defendant's court-appointed trial counsel was effective in 1999 is pointless and extravagant.
For the foregoing reasons, after preliminarily review of the motion and the record,  Defendant's fourth motion for postconviction, is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. ...