Case Title: Ross v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 274, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRANK M. ROSS 
§ 
AKA MELVIN ROSS,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 274, 2015 
 
Defendant Below-Appellant, 
§ 
  
 
  
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
v.  
§ 
of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
§  
in and for Kent County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID. 1201006997 
 
Plaintiff Below-Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   November 18, 2015 
Decided:   
November 18, 2015 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices.  
O R D E R 
This 18th day of November 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  In this appeal, a defendant who knowingly and freely pled guilty to crimes 
involving the possession of illegal substances challenges his conviction by pointing to the 
investigation at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (the “OCME”).  Ross pled 
guilty to drug dealing and possession of firearm ammunition on January 24, 2012.  On 
April 27, 2015, he filed his second Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief. 
(2)  The Superior Court correctly determined that Ross’s motion for 
postconviction relief is barred by Rule 61(i)(1) and (2).1  First, Ross filed the motion 
                                          
 
1 State v. Ross, Cr. ID.1201006997 (Del. Super. May 6, 2015). 
2 
 
more than one year after his guilty plea, rendering his motion time-barred.2  Second, 
Ross’s successive Rule 61 motion is procedurally barred because i) he pled guilty and 
was thus not “convicted after a trial”; and ii) he pleads neither “that new evidence exists 
that creates a strong inference that [he] is actually innocent” nor “that a new rule of 
constitutional law” applies.3 
(3)  Further, Ross’s argument that Rule 61 is unconstitutional fails for the reasons 
we articulated in our recent decision in Turnage v. State.4  Thus, the Superior Court 
properly held that Ross’s petition was procedurally barred.   
(4)  But in any event, Ross’s Rule 61 motion lacks merit because Ross has not 
pled any basis to avoid the effect of his voluntary and knowing plea of guilty and he has 
not suffered an unjust conviction. Indeed, Ross does not now contend that he was 
wrongly convicted or that he pled falsely when he admitted his actual guilt.  Thus, Ross’s 
Rule 61 motion is without merit for the reasons discussed in our decisions in, among 
other cases, Ira Brown v. State,5 Anzara Brown v. State,6 and Aricidiacono v. State.7  
                                          
 
2 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (“A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more 
than one year after the judgment of conviction is final . . . .”). 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2); see also Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) (explaining that Rule 
61’s bars to relief do not apply to a claim that satisfies Rule 61(d)(2)). 
4 See Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015) (rejecting this identical 
argument); see also Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 89 
(2009) (“States are under no obligation to provide mechanisms for postconviction relief . . . .”); 
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (“States have no obligation to provide [post-
conviction] relief . . . .”). 
5 108 A.3d 1201, 1205–06 (Del. 2015). 
6 117 A.3d 568, 581 (Del. 2015). 
7 __ A.3d __, 2015 WL 5933984, at *3–4 (Del. Oct. 12, 2015); see also State v. Jones, 2015 WL 
6746873, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015); Turnage, 2015 WL 6746644, at *2; Brewer v. State, 2015 
WL 4606541, at *2–3 (Del. July 30, 2015); McMillan v. State, 2015 WL 3444673, at *2 (Del. 
3 
 
And, Ross’s possession of firearm ammunition charge had no connection to any events at 
the OCME.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment of 
May 6, 2015 is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
                                                                                                                                        
May 27, 2015); Patrick L. Brown v. State, 2015 WL 3372271, at *2 (Del. May 22, 2015); 
Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940, at *2 (Del. May 21, 2015).