Title: Windsor v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM T. WINDSOR, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 406, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1212009736A,  
§ 1212009736B 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 10, 2023 
Decided: 
March 2, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, William Windsor, appeals from the Superior Court’s 
order denying his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Windsor’s opening brief 
that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On February 18, 2013, Windsor was charged in a 160-count indictment 
with various sex offenses committed over a period of years against two victims 
(“Victim 1” and “Victim 2”).  At Windsor’s request, the Superior Court severed the 
 
2
indictment into two cases, Case A and Case B.  Case A consisted of 151 counts 
relating to Victim 1, and Case B consisted of nine counts relating to Victim 2. 
(3) 
On the morning that jury selection was scheduled to begin, the State 
offered amended indictments reducing the number of counts in Case A from 151 to 
twelve and in Case B from nine to eight.  Later that same day, Windsor pleaded 
guilty to one count of Rape in the Second Degree in Case A and pleaded no contest 
to one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child in Case B.  In exchange for 
Windsor’s plea, the State agreed to dismiss the rest of the indicted offenses in both 
cases. 
(4) 
At sentencing on December 13, 2013, Windsor told the Superior Court 
that he wanted to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea.  The Superior Court 
refused to hear the motion because it was untimely and because Windsor was 
represented by counsel with whom Windsor had not discussed the motion.  After 
finding several aggravating factors, the Superior Court sentenced Windsor to a total 
of fifty years of imprisonment at Level V, twenty-five years for each offense, 
suspended after a total of twenty-two years for decreasing levels of supervision. 
(5) 
On direct appeal, Windsor’s counsel filed a no-merit brief under 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Windsor submitted several issues that he wanted the 
Court to consider, including that the 160-count indictment was multiplicitous and 
designed to coerce him to plead guilty, and that the Superior Court had erroneously 
 
3
refused to consider his motion to withdraw the guilty plea.  This Court rejected 
Windsor’s claims and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.1   
(6) 
In 2015, Windsor filed a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 
61.  Windsor’s postconviction motion reiterated the issues that he had raised on 
direct appeal and raised several additional issues, including that his guilty plea was 
involuntary because he did not have effective assistance of counsel.  The Superior 
Court denied the motion, and this Court affirmed.2 
(7) 
Windsor filed a second motion for postconviction relief in 2018.  The 
Superior denied the motion, holding that it was procedurally barred by Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61.  This Court affirmed.3 
(8) 
In June 2022, Windsor filed a third motion for postconviction relief.  
The Superior Court summarily dismissed the motion as procedurally barred by 
Superior Court Rule 61(d)(2).  Windsor has appealed to this Court.  We affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment.  As we have previously held,4 because Windsor was not 
convicted after trial, but instead pleaded guilty to one charge and no contest to 
 
1 Windsor v. State, 2014 WL 4264915 (Del. Aug. 28, 2014). 
2 Windsor v. State, 2015 WL 5679751 (Del. Sept. 25, 2015). 
3 Windsor v. State, 2019 WL 327964 (Del. Jan. 23, 2019). 
4 Id. at *2. 
 
4
another, he cannot proceed under the exceptions to the bar on repetitive motions in 
Rule 61(d)(2) that he seeks to invoke.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
 
5 See SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(d)(2)(i) (providing that a “second or subsequent motion under this 
rule shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” 
pleads with particularity new evidence of actual innocence or a new, retroactively applicable rule 
of constitutional law applies to the case and renders the conviction invalid) (emphasis added).