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. Bezarez

Superior Court of Delaware

August 14, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
JOSE D. BEZAREZ, Defendant

          Submitted: May 31, 2018.

         On Defendant's Third Motion for Postconviction Relief. SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

         On Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. DENIED.

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

          Jose D. Bezarez, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.

          ORDER

          RICHARD R. COOCH, R.J.

         This 14 day of August, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant's third Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, it appears to the Court that:

         1. The facts of this case were set forth in this Court's opinion issued on June 22, 2010 as follows:

On March 19, 2007, Defendant, Jose Bezarez, was indicted on four counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree stemming from a shooting that occurred at an apartment building in New Castle. Defendant allegedly discharged a firearm in an apartment located directly above the victims' apartment and the bullets from Defendant's weapon pierced the ceiling of the victims' apartment while the victims were inside of their apartment. Defendant subsequently entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of Reckless Endangering First Degree and was sentenced to two years of incarceration at Level V.[1]

         2. On January 4, 2010, Defendant filed, pro se, his first Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. This Court denied that Motion on June 22, 2010, [2] and the Supreme Court of Delaware dismissed the appeal on August 13, 2010.[3]

         3. Defendant filed his second, pro se, Motion for Postconviction Relief on March 18, 2014. This Court denied Defendant's motion on May 12, 2014. An appeal was filed on May 27, 2014, [4] and the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment on December 23, 2014.[5]

         4. Defendant has now filed, pro se, his third Motion for Postconviction Relief along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In this Motion for Postconviction Relief, Defendant raises one ground for relief; that "[c]ounsel failed to property advise Bezarez as to a plea and failed to provide him with effective representation in violation of the 6th, and 14thamendment[s] of the U.S. Constitution."

         5. Rule 61 is the remedy for defendants "in custody under a sentence of this court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction . . . ."[6] This Court "must first consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive issues."[7] The procedural bars of Rule

61 include timeliness, [8] successiveness, [9] procedural default, [10] and former adjudication.[11] A motion is untimely if it is filed more than one year after the conviction is finalized or defendant asserts a new constitutional right that is retroactively applied more than one year after it is first recognized.[12] A motion is successive if it is a "second or subsequent motion."[13] If any of these bars apply, the movant must show entitlement to relief under Rule ...

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.