Title: Walls v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH M. WALLS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 251, 2012 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
Cr. ID No. 86001399DI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 23, 20131 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 20, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of August 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) This appeal is from the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of 
the appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”).  We conclude there is no merit to the appeal 
and affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) In 1988, the appellant, Joseph M. Walls (“Walls”), was convicted 
of two counts of First Degree Robbery, one count of First Degree 
                                          
 
1 This appeal was stayed pending the Court’s decision in Holmes v. State, 2013 WL 
2297072 (Del. May 23, 2013). 
2 
 
Kidnapping, three counts of Second Degree Kidnapping, and one count of 
Second Degree Burglary.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 
thirty-seven years.  His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1990.2 
(3) Walls filed postconviction motions in 1993, 2007, and 2009.  The 
Superior Court denied the first motion on the merits and the second and third 
motions as procedurally barred.  On appeal, we affirmed all three Superior 
Court judgments.3 
(4) In his fourth motion for postconviction relief filed in December 
2011, Walls argued that the Superior Court was required to reevaluate his 
prior claims for relief and consider new claims under several decisions 
issued by this Court in 2009.4  Walls’ prior claims for relief chiefly 
concerned whether there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions.  
In his new claims, Walls alleged that he was denied the right of self-
representation at trial and on direct appeal, and that the Superior Court erred 
when instructing the jury on accomplice liability. 
                                          
 
2 Walls v. State, 1990 WL 17759 (Del. Feb. 8, 1990). 
3 See Walls v. State, 2011 WL 2893027 (Del. July 20, 2011) (affirming denial of third 
postconviction motion); Walls v. State, 2008 WL 187948 (Del. Jan. 7, 2008) (affirming 
denial of second postconviction motion); Walls v. State, 1994 WL 605506 (Del. Oct. 25, 
1994) (affirming denial of first postconviction motion). 
4 Those decisions include Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803 (Del. 2009); Allen v. State, 970 
A.2d 203 (Del. 2009); Brown v. State, 967 A.2d 1250 (Del. 2009), and Harris v. State, 
965 A.2d 691 (Del. 2009). 
3 
 
(5) By amended report dated March 6, 2012, a Commissioner 
recommended that Walls’ fourth postconviction motion be summarily 
dismissed as procedurally barred.  Walls filed an appeal from the 
Commissioner’s report followed by an “Addendum to [Postconviction] 
Request.”  In his “addendum,” Walls asked the Superior Court “to excuse 
[his] procedural defaults, to appoint counsel, and to examine the merits of 
the issues raised within the current [postconviction] motion and [his] prior 
collateral motions” under Martinez v. Ryan, a 2012 decision issued by the 
United States Supreme Court.5 
(6) By order dated April 17, 2012, the Superior Court adopted the 
Commissioner’s report and recommendation and summarily dismissed 
Walls’ fourth motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred.  The 
Superior Court rejected all attempts by Walls to invoke the exceptions to the 
procedural bars, concluding that the cases he relied upon, including Martinez 
v. Ryan, had no application, retroactive or otherwise, to the claims he 
advanced in his postconviction motion and “addendum.” 
                                          
 
5 Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). 
4 
 
(7) Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs on appeal and 
Walls’ post-briefing submissions,6 we are satisfied that the summary 
dismissal of Walls’ fourth postconviction motion was correct, and that the 
Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  Walls’ claims of insufficient 
evidence, and any related claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, either 
received substantive resolution twenty years ago or were not raised within 
the required time frame and are now defaulted.  Also defaulted is Walls’ 
claim that his rights were violated because no court, state agency or defense 
counsel, informed him of his right of self-representation. 
(8) Reconsideration of Walls’ formerly adjudicated claims and 
consideration of his defaulted claims is neither required nor warranted “in 
the interest of justice,”7 because of “a miscarriage of justice”8 or a newly 
recognized “retroactively applicable right.”9  The cases cited by Walls, all of 
which are factually or legally distinguishable from his case, offer no basis 
upon which to excuse the procedural bars.  
                                          
 
6 In two post-briefing submissions, Walls asked the Court to consider our decisions in 
George v. State, 2013 WL 543899 (Del. Feb. 12, 2013), and Williams v. State, 56 A.3d 
1053 (Del. 2012), when deciding this case. 
7 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(4). 
8 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(5). 
9 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice