Title: Fortt v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TSCHAKA W. FORTT,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 574, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos.IN98-02-0048 RI-
§                              0051 RI
§                  IN98-02-1465 RI
§                               1467 RI
Submitted: January 11, 2002
  Decided:   March 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 22nd day of March 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Tschaka W. Fortt, filed an appeal from the
Superior Court’s October 19, 2001 order denying his motion for postconviction
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Fortt claims that: a) the Superior Court improperly
denied his motion to sever the charges against him; b) the Superior Court
2
improperly denied his motion for acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence; c)
the Superior Court improperly admitted a gun into evidence; and d) his trial
attorney provided ineffective assistance.
(3)
In October 1999, a Superior Court jury found Fortt guilty of two
counts of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Attempted Robbery in the
First Degree and three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission
of a Felony.  Fortt was sentenced to a total of 15 years imprisonment at Level V,
to be followed by 3 years of decreasing levels of probation.  Fortt’s convictions
and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1
(4)
When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, this Court must first
determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule before
addressing any substantive issues.2  In this case, Fortt unsuccessfully raised his
first three claims in his direct appeal.  As such, those claims are procedurally
barred unless Fortt can demonstrate that reconsideration of the claims is
warranted in the interest of justice.3  There is no evidence that the Superior Court
                                                          
1Fortt v. State, 767 A.2d 799 (Del. 2001).
2Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991).
3SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i) (4).
3
lacked the authority to convict or sentence Fortt4 and, therefore, there is no basis
for a reconsideration of Fortt’s claims.
(5)
Fortt’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is also unavailing.
Because the claim was not raised initially in the Superior Court we are precluded
from considering it.5  The claim is meritless in any case.  In order to prevail on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Fortt must show that his counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome
of the proceedings would have been different.6   Fortt’s ineffectiveness claim is
based solely upon his three claims of substantive error by the Superior Court, all
of which were previously rejected by this Court in his direct appeal.  Fortt, thus,
can not show that any alleged errors by counsel resulted in prejudice to him.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
_Myron T. Steele___________________
Justice
                                                          
4Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 746 (Del. 1990).
5SUPR. CT. R. 8.
6Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).