Submitted: October 8, 2014
Motion for Postconviction Relief SUMMARILY DISMISSED
Brian Robertson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Jimmie Lewis, Richland Correctional Institution, Mansfield, OH, pro se.
ERIC M. DAVIS JUDGE
This 22nd day of January, 2015, upon consideration of the Motion for Postconviction Relief filed by Jimmie Lewis; the facts and legal authorities set forth in the Motion for Postconviction Relief (the "Motion"); and, the entire record in this case:
1. The Motion is Mr. Lewis' fifth motion seeking relief under Rule 61 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2. On October 23, 2003, a jury found Jimmie Lewis guilty of Carjacking in the Second Degree, Felony Theft and Resisting Arrest. The Court sentenced Mr. Lewis on these convictions (the "Sentence").
3. Mr. Lewis appealed his sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 29, 2005, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that: (i) the evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Lewis' conviction; (ii) the evidence did not warrant a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; (iii) imposition of separate sentences for Mr. Lewis' conviction for carjacking and felony theft did not violate his right of protection against double jeopardy; (iv) the trial court's denial of Mr. Lewis' request for substitute counsel did not constitute violation of his right to counsel; (v) the fact that jurors were older than Mr. Lewis and of different social and ethnic backgrounds did not amount to violation of his right to a jury trial; (vi) necessary documentation was made available to trial record to support imposition of habitual offender sentence; and, (vii) the trial court appropriately dealt with Mr. Lewis' claims concerning his mental health throughout trial.
4. On February 22, 2005, Mr. Lewis filed a pro se motion for a new trial. The Court denied that motion on March 1, 2005.
5. In preparation for his first motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61, Mr. Lewis sought transcripts of the trial and sentencing. Mr. Lewis filed a pro se "Motion to Impung the Authenticity of Trial Transcript and Sentencing Transcript." In that motion, Mr. Lewis questioned the authenticity of the transcripts which were provided to him and requested that "authentic" versions of those transcripts be provided. The Court denied this motion on October 6, 2005. Mr. Lewis appealed the decision. On December 14, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Lewis' appeal.
6. Mr. Lewis filed his first motion for postconviction relief on January 6, 2006. In this motion, Mr. Lewis made numerous allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as contending a conspiracy existed between the Prothonotary, defense counsel and the Attorney General's office. The Court determined that Mr. Lewis failed to set forth a single meritorious claim, and denied Mr. Lewis' motion. Mr. Lewis appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal.
7. On March 20, 2007, Mr. Lewis filed his second motion for postconviction relief. The Court summarily dismissed that second motion, finding that the motion was both procedurally barred and without merit. Mr. Lewis appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of this Court on November 15, 2007.
8. Mr. Lewis then filed his third motion for postconviction relief. On March 19, 2008, the Court summarily dismissed this third motion, both for being procedurally barred and because the claims were fully addressed and dismissed by both this Court and the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. ...