Case Title: Webb v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 418, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM J. WEBB, JR., 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 418, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 9907017204 (N)  
§                      9702013762 (N) 
§                      91000534DI (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 9, 2024 
Decided: 
May 23, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William J. Webb, Jr., filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order summarily dismissing his motion for reconsideration of postconviction 
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The State of Delaware has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Webb’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In March 1991, Webb pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and 
unauthorized use of a vehicle in Criminal ID No. 91000534DI.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Webb as follows: (i) for second-degree burglary, one year of Level V 
 
2 
incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation; and (ii) for unauthorized 
use of a vehicle, six months of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of 
Level II probation.  In February 1992, Webb was discharged early from probation. 
(3) 
In May 1997, Webb pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary in 
Criminal ID No. 9702013762.  The Superior Court sentenced Webb to eight years 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for seven years of Level III 
probation, suspended after eighteen months for the balance at Level II probation.  In 
February 2010, Webb was discharged from probation. 
(4) 
In March 2000, Webb pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary, first-
degree assault, and endangering the welfare of a child in Criminal ID No. 
9907017204.  The Superior Court sentenced Webb as follows: (i) for first-degree 
burglary, twelve years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for seven 
years of Level IV supervision, suspended after one year for Level II or Level III 
probation at the discretion of Probation and Parole; (ii) for first-degree assault, thirty 
months of Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for six months of Level 
II or Level III probation at the discretion of Probation and Parole; and (iii) for 
endangering the welfare of a child, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for 
one year of Level II probation.  In February 2010, Webb was discharged from 
probation. 
 
3 
(5) 
In March 2016, Webb filed a motion for postconviction relief under 
Rule 61 in Criminal ID No. 9702013762.  The Superior Court denied the motion, 
finding that Webb had completed his sentence and was no longer in custody as 
required by Rule 61.  Webb filed an untimely motion for reargument, which the 
Superior Court denied.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Webb’s 
motion for reargument and did not consider Webb’s arguments concerning the denial 
of his motion for postconviction relief because his appeal of that order was 
untimely.1 
(6) 
In April 2016, Webb filed a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 
61 in Criminal ID Nos. 91000534DI and 9907017204.  The Superior Court denied 
the motion, finding that Webb had completed his sentences and was no longer in 
custody as required by Rule 61.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.2 
(7) 
In August 2023, Webb filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 
2016 postconviction motion he filed in Criminal ID No. 9702013762 and the April 
2016 postconviction motions he filed in Criminal ID Nos. 91000534DI and 
9907017204.  He argued that the merits of the motions should be reconsidered 
because the Superior Court relied on the convictions in Criminal ID Nos. 
91000534DI, 9702013762, and 9907017204 to declare and sentence him as a 
 
1 Webb v. State, 2016 WL 6276905 (Del. Oct. 26, 2016). 
2 Webb v. State, 2016 WL 6872970 (Del. Nov. 21, 2016). 
 
4 
habitual offender for crimes he was charged with in 2019.  The Superior Court 
summarily dismissed the motion, holding that “[a] defendant who has been 
discharged from probation has no standing to seek relief under Rule 61.”3  This 
appeal followed. 
(8) 
In his opening brief, Webb argues that this Court’s decision in Martin 
v. State4 requires reversal of the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his motion 
for reconsideration.  This argument is without merit.  First, as the State emphasizes 
in the motion to affirm, a motion for reargument must be filed within five days of 
the Superior Court’s decision and Webb filed his motion for reconsideration years 
after the Superior Court’s decided his 2016 motions for postconviction relief.5 
(9) 
Second, Webb’s reliance on Martin in misplaced.  In Martin, this Court 
held that “a postconviction petition will not be mooted by a defendant’s completion 
of their sentence after the petition is filed if the defendant pleads that there are 
continuing collateral consequences arising from the conviction.”6  Webb completed 
his sentences in Criminal ID Nos. 91000534DI, 9702013762, and 9907017204 long 
 
3 State v. Webb, 2023 WL 6882426, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2023). 
4 306 A.3d 50 (Del. 2023) 
5 Super. Crim R. 57(d) (“In all cases not provided for by rule or administrative order, the court 
shall regulate its practice in accordance with the applicable Superior Court civil rule or in any 
lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules or the rules of the Supreme Court.”); Super. Ct. 
Civ. R. 59(e) (“A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of 
the Court's opinion or decision.”).  
6 Martin, 306 A.3d at 64 (emphasis added). 
 
5 
before he filed his Rule 61 motions in 2016 and thus lacked standing to seek Rule 
61 relief at the time he filed those motions.7  The Superior Court did not err in 
summarily dismissing Webb’s motion for reconsideration.      
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
7 Id. at 57-64.  See also Super. Ct. Crim. 61 (a) (“This rule governs the procedure on an application 
by a person in custody under a sentence of this court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction 
or a sentence of death on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or on any other ground that 
is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a collateral attack upon a criminal conviction or a capital 
sentence.”); Steck v. State, 2015 WL 2357161, at *2 (Del. May 15, 2015) (concluding that 
defendant who was discharged from probation in July 2014 and filed postconviction motion 
challenging the conviction in December 2014 lacked standing to seek postconviction relief under 
Rule 61); Watson v. State, 2015 WL 1456771, at *2 (Del. Mar. 30, 2015) (holding that defendant 
who was discharged from probation by June 2013 and filed postconviction motion challenging the 
conviction in June 2014 no longer had standing under Rule 61).