Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Dorman

Superior Court of Delaware

May 22, 2017

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND DORMAN, Defendant.

          Submitted: April 10, 2017

          Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

          Raymond Dorman, New Jersey State Prison, Trenton, New Jersey, pro se.

          COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

          Lynne M. Parker, Commissioner

         This 22nd day of May 2017, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

         BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         1. In October 1990, following a Superior Court jury trial, Defendant Raymond Dorman was convicted of two counts of assault in a detention facility. On December 14, 1990, Dorman was declared a habitual offender and sentenced to life imprisonment plus twenty years.[1]

         2. On direct appeal, on January 27, 1992, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Dorman's convictions and sentence.[2]

         3. On November 23, 1992, Dorman filed a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief asserting a number of grounds for relief. In that motion, Dorman raised claims as to improper sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and other alleged trial court errors.[3]

         4. On January 11, 1993, the Delaware Superior Court denied Dorman's motion for postconviction relief concluding that his claims were either procedurally barred or meritless.[4] Dorman appealed, and on April 7, 1993, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Delaware Superior Court.[5]

         5. On May 23, 1996, Dorman filed another motion for postconviction relief.[6] In that motion, Dorman raised claims of ineffectiveness of counsel as well as other claims. On May 29, 1996, the court sent a notice of non-compliance that the Rule 61 motion filed by Dorman was illegible and was not in conformance with the rule requirements. Dorman was instructed to make the necessary corrections before resubmitting the motion.[7]

         6. Almost 11 years has elapsed since Dorman's second Rule 61 motion was returned to him for non-compliance, and Dorman never resubmitted his non-conforming Rule 61 motion.

         7. On April 5, 2017, Dorman filed the subject Rule 61 motion.

         DEFENDANT'S ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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