Gregory v. State

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM GREGORY, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 352, 2010 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 9811012362 Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: September 20, 2010 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 20th day of September 2010, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, William Gregory, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s May 28, 2010 order denying his second motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1 We agree and affirm. (2) In February 2000, Gregory was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, Conspiracy in the First Degree, and two weapon offenses. He was sentenced to a total of 30 years of Level V incarceration, to be followed by decreasing levels of supervision. This Court affirmed Gregory s convictions on direct appeal.2 Gregory subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied. This Court affirmed the Superior Court s decision.3 (3) In this appeal from the Superior Court s denial of his second postconviction motion, Gregory claims that a) the retroactive application of Allen v. State, 970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009) required his jury to be instructed pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§271 and 274, in conformity with the evidence presented at trial; b) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and c) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly investigate the charges and challenge the medical evidence. 1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). Gregory v. State, Del. Supr., No. 278, 2000, Berger, J. (July 25, 2001). 3 Gregory v. State, Del. Supr., No. 600, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Oct. 17, 2006). 2 2 (4) Before addressing the substantive claims made in a motion for postconviction relief, the Superior Court must first consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61.4 Under Rule 61(i)(1), Gregory was required to file his motion within 3 years of the date his conviction became final. Gregory s conviction became final when this Court issued its mandate on Gregory s direct appeal in August 2001.5 As such, Gregory s second postconviction motion, filed in February 2010, was clearly untimely. (5) Furthermore, each of Gregory s individual claims is either without merit or procedurally barred. His first claim, regarding the retroactive applicability of Allen to the jury instructions, is without merit.6 His second claim of insufficiency of the evidence is procedurally barred under both Rule 61(i)(2) and 61(i)(3) because it was raised neither in his prior postconviction motion nor in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction. Gregory s third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4) because it was formerly adjudicated in his first postconviction motion. Moreover, the record before us does not support a claim that the procedural bars can be avoided under Rule 61(i)(5) due to a miscarriage of justice. 4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2). 6 Richardson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 86, 2009, Ridgely, J. (July 12, 2010) (en Banc) (Because Allen does not constitute a new rule and is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, it does not apply retroactively.) 5 3 (6) It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 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 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.