Title: Williams, et al. v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE WILLIAMS, et al.,  
§ 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 103, 2015 
 
Defendants Below-Appellants, 
§ 
  
 
  
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
v.  
§ 
of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
§  
in and for Sussex County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below-Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 2, 2015 
Decided:   
December 2, 2015 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices.  
O R D E R 
This 2nd day of December 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  These Rule 61 petitioners sought relief in the Superior Court because of the 
evidence-handling problems that were discovered at the Office of the Chief Medical 
Examiner.  As in many prior cases, these petitioners all pled guilty and admitted to 
crimes involving the possession of illegal substances.  These petitioners did not raise any 
new arguments, but instead rehashed arguments made and rejected in other cases.  The 
Superior Court properly dismissed their petitions as untimely under Rule 61.1  On appeal, 
the petitioners also reiterate arguments that this Court has considered and found lack 
merit in other recent cases. 
                                          
 
1 Williams v. State, Cr. ID.1004003733 (Del. Super. Feb. 12, 2015). 
2 
 
(2)  The petitioners’ arguments that the new form of Rule 61 is unconstitutional or 
unfairly retroactive to them are without merit.2  Even if the petitioners’ claims were not 
procedurally barred, they lack substantive merit as each of them freely pled guilty and 
were not coerced in any way into doing so.  This Court has fully considered identical 
arguments before in Ira Brown v. State,3 Anzara Brown v. State,4 and Aricidiacono v. 
State,5 and adheres to those prior decisions.6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment of 
February 12, 2015 is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
                                          
 
2 See Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015) (rejecting this identical 
argument); see also Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 89 
(2009) (“States are under no obligation to provide mechanisms for postconviction relief . . . .”); 
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (“States have no obligation to provide [post-
conviction] relief . . . .”). 
3 108 A.3d 1201, 1205–06 (Del. 2015). 
4 117 A.3d 568, 581 (Del. 2015). 
5 __ A.3d __, 2015 WL 5933984, at *3–4 (Del. Oct. 12, 2015). 
6 See also State v. Jones, 2015 WL 6746873, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015); Turnage, 2015 WL 
6746644, at *2; Brewer v. State, 2015 WL 4606541, at *2–3 (Del. July 30, 2015); McMillan v. 
State, 2015 WL 3444673, at *2 (Del. May 27, 2015); Patrick L. Brown v. State, 2015 WL 
3372271, at *2 (Del. May 22, 2015); Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940, at *2 (Del. May 21, 
2015).