Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teel v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

November 15, 2013

Kenneth TEEL, Defendant Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Submitted: Sept. 13, 2013.

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 0608016078.

Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.

ORDER

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.

This 15th day of November 2013, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In October 2007, the appellant, Kenneth Teel, pled guilty to Rape in the First Degree and Sexual Solicitation of a Child. On January 4, 2008, Teel was sentenced to a lengthy prison term. On direct appeal, we affirmed Teel's convictions.[1]

(2) This appeal is from the Superior Court's denial of Teel's fourth motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (" Rule 61" ). It is well-settled that when reviewing a denial of postconviction relief, this Court will address any procedural bars before considering the merits of any claim for relief.[2]

(3) Having considered the Rule 61(i) procedural bars in this case, the Court has determined, as did the Superior Court, that Teel's fourth postconviction motion is procedurally barred as repetitive [3] and formerly adjudicated.[4] Also, Teel's motion is untimely.[5]

(4) In the absence of a constitutional violation,[6] a newly recognized retroactively applicable right,[7] or any indication that reconsideration of Teel's claims is warranted in the interest of justice, [8] we conclude that the Superior Court did not err when denying Teel's fourth motion for postconviction relief. We further conclude that the Superior Court properly denied, as without merit, Teel's claim that, under the 2012 United States Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, he had a right to counsel in the postconviction proceedings.[9]

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.