WILLIAM T. WINDSOR, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: January 9, 2019
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID Nos.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
STRINE, JR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the
State's motion to affirm, and the record on appeal,
appears to the Court that:
appellant, William Windsor, appeals from the Superior
Court's order denying his second motion for
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior
Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of Windsor's opening brief that the appeal is
without merit. We agree and affirm.
February 18, 2013, Windsor was charged in a 160-count
indictment with various sex offenses committed over a period
of years against two victims ("Victim 1" and
"Victim 2"). At Windsor's request, the Superior
Court severed the indictment into two cases, Case A and Case
B. Case A consisted of 151 counts relating to Victim 1, and
Case B consisted of nine counts relating to Victim 2.
the morning that jury selection was scheduled to begin, the
State offered amended indictments reducing the number of
counts in Case A from 151 to twelve and in Case B from nine
to eight. Later that same day, Windsor pleaded guilty to one
count of Rape in the Second Degree in Case A and pleaded no
contest to one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child in
Case B. In exchange for Windsor's plea, the State agreed
to dismiss the rest of the indicted offenses in both cases.
sentencing on December 13, 2013, Windsor told the Superior
Court that he wanted to file a motion to withdraw the guilty
plea. The Superior Court refused to hear the motion because
it was untimely and because Windsor was represented by
counsel with whom Windsor had not discussed the motion. After
finding several aggravating factors, the Superior Court
sentenced Windsor to a total of fifty years of imprisonment
at Level V, twenty-five years for each offense, suspended
after a total of twenty-two years for decreasing levels of
direct appeal, Windsor's counsel filed a no-merit brief
under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Windsor submitted several
issues that he wanted the Court to consider, including that
the 160-count indictment was multiplicitous and designed to
coerce him to plead guilty, and that the Superior Court had
erroneously refused to consider his motion to withdraw the
guilty plea. This Court rejected Windsor's claims and
affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.
February 2015, Windsor filed a motion for postconviction
relief under Rule 61 and requested the appointment of
counsel. Windsor's postconviction motion reiterated the
issues that he had raised on direct appeal and raised several
additional issues, including that his guilty plea was
involuntary because he did not have effective assistance of
counsel. The Superior Court denied the motion, and this Court
affirmed on appeal.
Windsor filed a second motion for postconviction relief on
June 19, 2018, and the Superior Court denied the motion on
July 19, 2018. The Superior Court held that the motion was
procedurally barred by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
Windsor now appeals to this Court.
affirm. Windsor has not overcome the procedural bars that are
set forth in Rule 61. Under Rule 61, "a second or
subsequent motion for postconviction relief will be summarily
dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after trial and
pleads with particularity the existence of new evidence that
creates a strong inference of actual innocence or a new rule
of constitutional law that is retroactively
Because Windsor was not convicted after trial, but instead
pleaded guilty to one charge and no contest to another, he
cannot proceed under the exceptions to repetitive motions in
Rule 61(d)(2) that he seeks to invoke. By pleading
guilty, Windsor waived his right to present evidence in his
own behalf.Moreover, in the absence of clear and