June 29, 2015
State of Delaware
Wade A. Bowersox,
SUBMITTED: April 8, 2015
Dear Mr. Bowersox:
Pending before the Court is the motion for postconviction relief which defendant Wade A. Bowersox ("defendant") has filed pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). The applicable version of Rule 61 is that effective June 4, 2014.
A jury found defendant guilty of driving under the influence and turning without a signal. This was a fifth offense driving under the influence conviction. Defendant appealed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The date of the mandate, which is the date when the judgment of conviction became final, is April 10, 2013.
Nearly two years later, on April 8, 2015, defendant filed his first postconviction motion. In the motion, defendant asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleges in full:
Councel [sic] did not object to evidence.
Councel [sic] did not object to blod [sic] sample to be admitted as evidence in a timly [sic] fashion fo [sic] Courts to concitter [sic] appeal.
The motion was not filed within a year of when the judgment of conviction was final, and thus, it is time-barred. To avoid that bar, defendant either must have:
(i) [pled] ... with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or
(ii) [pled] ... with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant's case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.
Defendant failed to make this showing. Defendant's motion is time-barred, and consequently, is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
Richard F. Stokes Judge