Harrison v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MONA HARRISON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 107, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County in Cr. ID No. 87S00410DI Submitted: April 25, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 6th day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief, the State s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 1987, the appellant, Mona Harrison, pleaded guilty to Felony Murder in the Second Degree. In 1988, Harrison was sentenced to life in prison, subject to parole. (2) On January 5, 2006, Harrison filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. By order dated February 6, 2006, the Superior Court summarily denied the motion as time-barred and as substantively without merit. (3) After careful consideration of the parties positions on appeal and the Superior Court record, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Superior Court s wellreasoned decision dated February 6, 2006.1 Harrison s postconviction motion and the claims therein, coming seventeen years after her guilty plea and sentence, were appropriately dismissed as time-barred.2 On appeal, Harrison has not demonstrated, and the record does not reflect, a basis upon which to excuse the procedural bar.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 See also Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (holding that defendant was bound by his answers on the guilty plea form and by his sworn testimony during plea colloquy). 2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (2005) (barring claim filed more than three years after judgment is final or after newly recognized retroactively applicable right). 3 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) (2006) (excepting from time bar a jurisdictional claim or a colorable claim that there was a manifest injustice because of a constitutional violation). 2
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.
