Title: Watson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JESUS WATSON,  
 
          ' 
 
' 
No.  541, 2006 
Defendant Below,  
 
' 
Appellant,  
 
 
' 
Court BelowBSuperior Court 
' 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
' 
for Sussex County. 
' 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
' 
' 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
' 
Def.  ID No.  91S00227DI 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
' 
 
 
Submitted: November 17, 2006 
Decided: 
February 20, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of February 2007 upon consideration of the appellant=s 
opening brief and the appellee=s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jesus Watson, filed an appeal from the Superior 
Court=s summary denial of his third motion for postconviction relief.1  It is 
manifest that the appeal is without merit and should be affirmed on the basis of 
the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated September 5, 2006. 
                                                 
1State v.  Watson, 2006 WL 2666225 (Del.  Super. Ct.). 
(2) 
Watson pleaded guilty in 1991 to one count of Unlawful Sexual 
Intercourse in the First Degree and two counts of Robbery in the First Degree.  
 
 
2 
Watson did not appeal the conviction.  He also did not appeal the denial of his 
first or his second motion for postconviction relief. 
(3) 
Watson=s third motion for postconviction relief alleged that his 
guilty plea was uninformed and his defense counsel was ineffective.  The 
Superior Court considered the merit of Watson=s allegation that he was misled 
into believing that his sentence was Aparolable.@  The Court concludes that the 
Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when rejecting that allegation.2 
                                                 
2The Superior Court determined that the term Aparolable,@ as used at Watson=s guilty 
plea proceeding, referred to his eligibility for conditional release and was not a misleading 
reference to his eligibility for parole.   
 
 
3 
(4) 
It further appears that the Superior Court did not err or abuse its 
discretion when it  determined that Watson=s motion was procedurally barred as 
untimely3 and repetitive.4  Also, to the extent Watson did not previously raise 
his postconviction claims,5 the Court agrees that Watson did not demonstrate 
the requisite cause and prejudice for relief from that procedural default.6  
Finally, the Court concludes that Watson has not presented a legitimate basis 
upon which to excuse the procedural bars.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice 
                                                 
3Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(1) (2007). 
4Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(2).  
5It appears that the claims were formerly adjudicated.  Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  
61(i)(4).  See State v.  Watson, 1992 WL 114032 (Del.  Super.  Ct) (denying postconviction 
motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and coerced guilty plea).  
6Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(3). 
7Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  61(i)(4), (5).