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. Tatem

Superior Court of Delaware

November 8, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
WILLIAM TATEM, Defendant.

          Date Submitted: October 11, 2018

         Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Post-Conviction Relief, Denied

          Amanda J. DiLiberto, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Deputy Attorney General.

          William Tatem, Pro Se.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE CALTFM L. SCOTT, JR. JUDGE

         This 5th day of November, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, is appears to the Court that:

1. In 1984, a jury found Defendant guilty of Rape in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the Rape and Kidnapping convictions, and six years for the remaining convictions. Defendant's convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1986.[1]
2. Defendant has filed several Motions for Postconviction Relief under Rule 35 and Rule 61. These Motions have all been denied.[2]
3. The Court must address Defendant's Motion in regard to Rule 6l(i) procedural bars to relief before assessing the merits of his motion.[3] As defendant has previously filed Motions for Postconviction Relief in this Court, the Motions must satisfy the pleading requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of Rule 6l.[4]
4. Second or subsequent motions under this rule shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion either:
a. pleads 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
b. pleads 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.[5]
5. Defendant is correct in his assertion that a claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim could not be raised in a direct appeal.[6] However, the rules require a Defendant's first motion to "specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the movant and of which the movant has or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have knowledge, and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified."[7]
6. A claim for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal, and is properly addressed in a Rule 61 Motion.[8] However, Defendant was required to raise ...

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.