Case Title: Raiford v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 30, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL RAIFORD,
'
'
No. 30, 2002
Defendant Below,
'
Appellant,
'
Court Below--Superior Court
'
of the State of Delaware, in 
v.
'
and for Sussex County in IS93-
'
11-0148-R2, 0150-R2, 0151-2,
STATE OF DELAWARE,
'
R2, 0153-R2 through 0156-R2.
'
Plaintiff Below,
'
Appellee.
'
Def. ID No. 93S05231DI
Submitted: March 7, 2002
Decided:
April 17, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 17th day of April 2002, 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 appellant, Michael Raiford, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court=s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief.  The
appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Raiford=s opening brief
that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
After a four-day jury trial in June 1994, Raiford was convicted
of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, two
2
counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the
First Degree, Kidnapping in the Second Degree, and two counts of Possession
of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  On direct appeal,
this Court reversed the First Degree Kidnapping conviction and affirmed all
of the other convictions.1
(3)
On September 24, 1998, the Superior Court denied Raiford=s first
motion for postconviction relief.  On April 9, 1999, Raiford voluntarily
dismissed his appeal from that decision.  On January 8, 2002, the Superior
Court denied Raiford=s second motion for postconviction relief.  This appeal
followed. 
(4)
It is manifest to the Court that this matter should be affirmed on
the basis of and for the reasons set forth in the Superior Court's January 8
decision.  We agree with the Superior Court that Raiford=s motion is untimely
and repetitive and thus is procedurally barred.2  Moreover, we agree that
Raiford has not made the requisite showing of a newly recognized right, a
viable jurisdictional claim, or a colorable constitutional violation, to warrant
                                                          
1Raiford v.  State, 1995 WL 46693 (Del.  Supr.).
2Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(1), (2).
3
application of an exception to the procedural bar.3  Furthermore, as
determined by the Superior Court, aspects of Raiford=s motion, specifically,
claims related to his AFifth Amendment@ argument, are procedurally barred
as formerly adjudicated.4  We agree that reconsideration of the formerly
adjudicated claims is not warranted in the interest of justice.5
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/Joseph T. Walsh
           Justice
                                                          
3Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(5).
4Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(4).
5Id.