Morris v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THEODORE M. MORRIS, § § § § § § § § § § § Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 109, 2009 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0411013777 Submitted: May 22, 2009 Decided: August 11, 2009 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 11th day of August 2009, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief, the appellee s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appear to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Theodore M. Morris, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s January 30, 2009 denial of his first motion for postconviction relief. The appellee, State of Delaware, has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court s judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Morris opening brief that his appeal is without merit.1 We agree and affirm. (2) By superseding indictment filed on March 28, 2005, Morris was charged with four counts of Rape in the First Degree and three counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child, among other charges. On June 20, 2005, Morris pled guilty to two counts of Rape in the First Degree and one count of Sexual Exploitation of a Child.2 After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Morris, on August 12, 2005, to two life terms plus twenty-five years. Morris did not file a direct appeal. (3) On June 17, 2008, Morris moved for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ( Rule 61 ), on the ground that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. At the Superior Court s request, Morris counsel filed an affidavit in response to the allegations of ineffectiveness.3 (4) By order dated January 30, 2009, the Superior Court denied relief after determining that Morris had not demonstrated there that his counsel s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or was prejudicial. This appeal followed. 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). The State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. 3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g)(2). Morris counsel disputed the allegations of ineffectiveness. 2 2 (5) It is well-settled that when reviewing the Superior Court s denial of a postconviction motion, this Court first must consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive issues.4 Having applied the procedural imperatives of Rule 61, the Court has concluded that Morris postconviction motion, filed on June 17, 2008, is barred as untimely under Rule 61(i)(1) because it was not filed within one year after Morris conviction became final.5 (6) Under Rule 61(i)(5), the time bar imposed by 61(i)(1) does 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 proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction. 6 Here, however, Morris has not demonstrated, nor does the record reflect, that he is entitled to relief under Rule 61(i)(5). There is no record evidence suggesting that Morris counsel s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, Morris would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.7 Also, the 4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). Morris conviction became final on September 13, 2005, upon the expiration of his appeal period thirty days after sentencing. Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1). 6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 7 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58-61 (Del. 1988). 5 3 record does not support Morris claim that his guilty plea was involuntary. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Morris is bound by the answers on his guilty plea form and his sworn statements to the judge during the plea colloquy.8 (7) It is manifest on the face of Morris opening brief that the appeal is without merit. The issues raised on appeal are clearly controlled by settled Delaware law. To the extent the issues on appeal implicate the exercise of judicial discretion, there was no abuse of discretion. 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/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 8 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 4
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.
