United States District Court, D. Delaware
Francisco Lanzo. Pro se petitioner.
Kathryn Joy Garrison, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Noreika, United States District Judge
before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition")
filed by Petitioner Francisco Lanzo ("Petitioner").
(D.I. 1). The State filed an Answer in opposition. (D.I. 9).
For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Petition,
22, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to second degree conspiracy,
aggravated possession, and two counts of drug dealing in a
Tier 4 quantity. See Lanzo v. State, 123 A.3d 938
(Table), 2015 WL 5120872, at *1 (Del. Aug. 28, 2015). The
Superior Court sentenced him to a total of 19 years of Level
V incarceration, suspended after 10 years for decreasing
levels of supervision. (D.I. 9 at 2) The Delaware Supreme
Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions on direct appeal.
See Lanzo, 2015 WL 5120872, at *l.
August 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction
relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
("Rule 61 motion"). (D.I. 9 at 2). The Superior
Court denied the Rule 61 motion in November 2016. (D.I. 12-5
at 4). Petitioner did not appeal that decision.
GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 ("AEDPA") "to reduce delays in the
execution of state and federal criminal sentences . . . and
to further the principles of comity, finality, and
federalism." Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202,
206 (2003). Pursuant to AEDPA, a federal court may consider a
habeas petition filed by a state prisoner only "on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a). AEDPA imposes procedural requirements and
standards for analyzing the merits of a habeas petition in
order to "prevent federal habeas 'retrials' and
to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to
the extent possible under law." Bell v. Cone,
535 U.S. 685, 693 (2002).
Exhaustion and Procedural Default
exceptional circumstances, a federal court cannot grant
habeas relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all means
of available relief under state law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 842-44 (1999); Picard v. Connor, 404U.S. 270,
AEDPA states, in pertinent part:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be ...