State of Delaware v. Watson.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. DAVID L. WATSON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID# 30304768 Date Submitted: May 1, 2002 Date Decided: July 19, 2002 ORDER U PON D EFENDANT S M OTION FOR P OSTCONVICTION R ELIEF DENIED On this 19th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the Motion for Postconviction Relief filed by the Defe ndant and the record in this case, it app ears to the C ourt that: (1) On December 28, 1993, Defendant plead guilty to one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree. On February 18, 1993, Defendant was sentenced to twen ty-five (25 ) years at L evel V , follow ed by ten (10) years probat ion at L evel III. Defendant did not file a direct appeal, thus his conviction became final on March 18, State v. Watson ID# 30304768 July 19, 2002 Page 2 1993, thirty (30) days after the appeal period expired.1 Defendant previously filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief that this Court denied on May 26, 1999 as time barred and the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently affirmed.2 (2) In evalu ating a postc onviction re lief motion, th e Court m ust first ascertain if any procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) apply to the case.3 If a procedural bar is found to exist, the Court should refrain from considering the merits of the individual claims.4 Summary dismissal is prov ided for pursuant to R ule 61(d)(4) "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief, the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal ..." (3) Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1), a motion for post conviction relief may not be filed more than three years after the judgment of conviction is final ... 5 This three year limitation is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged.6 1 See Murphy v. State, 720 A.2d 559 (Del. 1998). 2 See State v. Watson, Cr. A. No. 93-07-0686, Alford, J. (Del. Super. May 26, 1999) (ORDER), aff d, No. 274, 1999, Walsh, J. (Del. Oct. 28, 1999) (ORDER). 3 See Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 61(i). 4 See Id. 5 Superior Court Cr. R. 61(i)(1). 6 See Robinson v. State, 584 A.2d 1203, 1204 (Del. 1990). State v. Watson ID# 30304768 July 19, 2002 Page 3 This m otion w as filed more th an nine years afte r the jud gmen t of con viction b ecame final. Thus, D efendan t s motion fo r postconv iction relief is tim e-barred p ursuant to R ule 61(i)(1) . (4) The Court further finds that the Rule 61(i)(5) exception to the procedural bar does not apply here. Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(5), the procedural bars of Rule 61(i)(1) do not apply to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the procee dings le ading to the judg ment o f conv iction. 7 (5) Defend ant conten ds that the R ule 61(i)(5) e xceptions b enefit him, a s this Court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea . Defendant contends that this charge should have proceeded in Family Court. Defendant pled guilty to one count of First Degree Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, 11 Del. C. § 775. The Defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury on six counts of sexual misconduct, thus the Superior Court had jurisdiction over these charges. Consequently, I find that these claims are meritless and deserve summary disposition. 7 S. Ct. Cr. R. 61(i)(5). State v. Watson ID# 30304768 July 19, 2002 Page 4 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the m otion is h ereb y SUMMARILY DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________ ALFORD , J. ORIGINAL: PROTHONOTARY S OFFICE - CRIMINAL DIV.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.