Title: Weaver v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONNIE O. WEAVER,  
§ 
§ 
No.  627, 2001 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County in Cr. 
§ 
ID No.  84002459DI. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2002 
Decided: 
November 4, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of November 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In 1984, the appellant, Donnie Weaver, was convicted in the 
Superior Court of Kidnapping in the First Degree, Rape in the Second Degree 
and Assault in the Third Degree.  Weaver’s convictions were affirmed on direct 
appeal in 1986.1  Over the years, Weaver has attempted, without success, to 
overturn his convictions. 
                                                 
1Weaver v.  State, 1986 WL 217572 (Del.  Supr.). 
 
 
2 
(2) 
In 2001, Weaver filed another motion for postconviction relief. 
Weaver claimed that the evidence at his 1984 jury trial was insufficient to 
support his conviction for Kidnapping in the First Degree.  Second, Weaver 
claimed that counsel should have been appointed to represent him on direct 
appeal.  Third, Weaver claimed that the Delaware kidnapping statute has been 
repealed.   
(3) 
By order dated December 3, 2001, the Superior Court summarily 
denied Weaver’s motion as procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61.  Specifically, the Superior Court determined that Weaver’s claims were 
untimely,2 and that his motion was repetitive.3  Moreover, the Superior Court 
found that any exception to the procedural bars was inapplicable.4  We agree.  
Furthermore, it appears to this Court that two of Weaver’s claims, i.e., his 
insufficient evidence and right to counsel claims, are barred as previously 
                                                 
2See Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(1) (barring postconviction motion that is not filed 
within three years after conviction is final or three years after retroactively applicable right is 
recognized). 
3See Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(2) (barring any ground for relief that was not asserted 
in a prior postconviction proceeding).  
4See Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(5) (providing that procedural bars of Rule 61(i)(1) and 
(2) shall not apply to a jurisdictional claim or to a claim that there was a miscarriage of justice 
because of a constitutional violation). 
 
 
3 
adjudicated.5  Reconsideration of either claim is not warranted in the interest of 
justice.6  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J.  Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
5See Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(4) (barring any ground for relief that was formerly 
adjudicated ).  
6Id.