Case Title: Taylor v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 550, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN A. TAYLOR,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 550, 2000
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN94-08-1466-1471
§                   IN94-09-0378,0379
Submitted: November 9, 2001
  Decided:   December 17, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 17th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs
on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, John A. Taylor, filed an appeal from
the October 27, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Taylor claims that the Superior Court
improperly denied his motion for postconviction relief as procedurally
2
barred.1  He claims he successfully overcame the procedural bar by raising
a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice due to constitutional violations
that undermined the legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.2  Taylor further claims
that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise these
constitutional violations in his direct appeal.
(3)
In January 1996, Taylor was convicted by a Superior Court
jury of two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, five
counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, and one count of
Offensive Touching.  Taylor was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration at
Level V for each count of unlawful sexual intercourse, six months
incarceration at Level V for each of three counts of unlawful sexual
contact, a total of nine months incarceration at Level V followed by
probation for each of the two remaining counts of unlawful sexual contact,
and was fined $100 for the offensive touching charge.  This Court affirmed
Taylor’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.3  Following this
Court’s affirmance of the Superior Court’s denial of Taylor’s petition for a
                                                          
1Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3).
2Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).
3
writ of mandamus, 4 Taylor filed the instant postconviction motion in the
Superior Court.
(4)
When reviewing a motion for postconviction relief under Rule
61, a court must first consider whether the procedural requirements of the
Rule have been met before addressing any substantive issues.5  The
Superior Court properly determined that Taylor had not met the procedural
requirements of the Rule.  First, Taylor failed to demonstrate either cause
for his failure to raise any of his current constitutional claims in his direct
appeal or prejudice resulting from any alleged error at trial.6  His claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, for failing to assert these claims in his
direct appeal, was properly rejected by the Superior Court.  The record
contains no evidence suggesting that any alleged error on the part of
Taylor’s counsel resulted in prejudice to Taylor.7  Second, Taylor failed to
demonstrate a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice due to
                                                                                                                                                                            
3Taylor v. State, Del. Supr., 690 A.2d 933 (1997).
4Taylor v. State, Del. Supr., No. 181, 1998, Walsh, J., 1998 WL 465137 (June 25,
1998) (ORDER).  In his petition, Taylor requested Department of Correction records to
use in a future postconviction motion.
5Maxion v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 148, 150 (1996).
6Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3).
7Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).
4
constitutional violations that undermined the legality, reliability, integrity
or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.8  The
Superior Court thoroughly considered all of Taylor’s claims of
constitutional violations, as well as his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, and properly found them to be without merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                          
8Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).