Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
State v. Sykes
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
July 8, 2015
STATE OF DELAWARE
NIGEL C. SYKES Defendant.
Submitted: April 30, 2015
Daniel B. McBride, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Nigel C. Sykes, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
This 8th day of July, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant Nigel C. Sykes pled guilty in July 2011 to one count of Robbery First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony, one count of Attempted Robbery First Degree, and one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited.
2. Prior to sentencing, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. The motion was denied by this Court and Defendant was sentenced.  In denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, this Court found that Defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, and that he was "not operating under any misapprehension or mistake as to his legal rights."
3. Defendant was then sentenced to sixty four years at Level V, suspended after fifteen years for six months at Level IV, with the balance of the sentence to be served at Level III probation. Following sentencing, Defendant appealed his convictions, sentence, and the denial of his Motion to Withdraw Guilty plea to the Delaware Supreme Court. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, sentence, and this Court's denial of Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.
4. Defendant has previously filed one Motion for Postconviction Relief on August 13, 2014 that was denied by this Court on November 5, 2014. Defendant did not appeal the denial of his first Motion for Postconviction Relief to the Delaware Supreme Court. The instant motion, Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, was filed on April 30, 2015, along with a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.
5. In his second Motion, defendant again argues 1) various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and 2) that an unspecified "hearing" was held without Defendant's knowledge or presence.
6. Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is controlled Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i), a Motion for Postconviction Relief can be potentially procedurally barred for time limitations, successive motions, procedural defaults, and former adjudications.
7. Rule 61(i)(1) provides that a motion exceeds time limitations if it is filed more than one year after the conviction is finalized, or if the motion asserts a newly recognized, retroactively applied right more than one year after it is first recognized.
8. Rule 61(i)(2) provides that a motion is successive if it is the second or subsequent motion made under this Rule, and such successive motions are prohibited unless the pleading requirements of 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii) are met.
9. Rule 61(i)(3) bars consideration any ground for relief "not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, " unless the movant can show "cause for relief from the procedural default" and ...
Buy This Entire Record For