Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE P. JOHNSON, SR.,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 182, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0706025356 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 19, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 11, 2009  
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of August 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court 
record, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, George P. Johnson, Sr., filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 12, 2009 summary dismissal of his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 
61”).1  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d) (4) (providing that the judge may enter an order for 
summary dismissal of a postconviction motion if it plainly appears from the motion and 
the record that the movant is not entitled to relief). 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
On April 10, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted Johnson of 
Delivery of Cocaine to a Minor, Delivery of Cocaine within 300 Feet of a 
Park, and Trespass in the Third Degree.  The jury acquitted Johnson of 
Endangering the Welfare of a Child.  The Superior Court sentenced Johnson 
to twenty years at Level V, suspended after ten years of mandatory 
incarceration for three years at Level IV Crest Program, suspended after 
successful completion for Level III probation.  On direct appeal, this Court 
affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentence pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 26(c).3 
 
(3) 
Johnson alleged in his postconviction motion that the 
prosecutor’s closing argument impermissibly infringed on Johnson’s right 
not to testify and improperly expressed the prosecutor’s personal opinion of 
Johnson’s guilt.  Also, Johnson alleged that the jury verdict was inconsistent.  
Johnson did not raise any of these claims at trial or on direct appeal.  The 
Superior Court concluded that Johnson’s postconviction motion warranted 
summary dismissal because it was “completely conclusory.” 
                                          
 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Johnson v. State, 2008 WL 4290602 (Del. Supr.). 
 
3
 
(4) 
When reviewing the Superior Court’s denial of a postconviction 
motion, the Court first must consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61 
before addressing any substantive issues.4  In this case, Johnson’s claims are 
procedurally barred unless he can demonstrate cause for his failure to raise 
the claims at trial or on direct appeal and prejudice from the alleged 
violation of his rights,5 or that an exception to the procedural bar is 
warranted.6 
 
(5) 
Johnson has satisfied none of those requirements.  In the 
absence of demonstrated cause and prejudice or that an exception to the 
procedural bar is warranted, the Court concludes that the Superior Court’s 
summary dismissal of Johnson’s motion was appropriate.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                          
 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
5 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3). 
6 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).