IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) )

v. ) C ase N o

. 1110021147 ) )

VICTOR SIMPKINS

, ) )

Defendant. )

Date Submitted: October 12, 2023

Date Decided: December 19 , 2023

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING VICTOR SIMPKINS’

THIRD MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF

Upon consideration of Defendant Victor Simpkins ’ T hird M otion for

P ostconviction R elief, Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, statutory and decisional

law, and the entire record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

1. On April 1 1 , 2014, Mr. Simpkins pl e d guilty to Manslaughter and

Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”)

. 1

2. On September 1 9 , 2014, this Court sentenced Mr. Simpkins to twenty

five years of Level V confinement , suspended after ten years with decreasing levels

1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 52 and 61

. In denying Mr. Simpkins’ previous motions, the Court incorrectly stated that Mr. Simpkins pled no contest to these charges. See D.I. 81, 117, and 134. The Court’s misstatements to the record do not affect the Court’s previous orders. To clarify, Mr. Sim pkins pled no contest to charges in Case No.

1105018677 which is not the case at issue.2

of supervision for Manslaughter and five year s at Level V confinement for PFDCF

with no probation to follow

. 2

3. Mr. Simpkins did not directly appeal his conviction to the Delaware

Supreme Court.

4. Since his judgment of conviction became final, 3 Mr. Simpkins has filed

two Motions for Postconviction Relief which were denied

, 4 three Motions for

Sentence Modification w hich were denied

, 5 a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea

which was denied

, 6 and a Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence which was

also denied. 7

2 D.I. 57

. 3 Mr. Simpkins’ judgment of conviction became final thirty days after imposition of

his sentence since he did not file a direct appeal. See Super. Ct. Cri m. R. 61(m)(1)

. 4 In his first Motion for Postconviction Relief, Mr. Simpkins assert ed a number of claims including his Manslaughter plea was coerced due to his incompetency, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the right t o appeal or the right to withdraw his guilty plea, that he had made positive progress in the current

rehabili tation process, and double jeopardy. D.I. 78. Mr. Simpkins’ motion was procedurally barred due to untimeliness under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) with no applicable exceptions

. D.I. 81. Mr. Simpkins’ second Motion for Postconviction

Relief was also sum marily dismissed for failing to overcome the timeliness requirement without asserting an applicable right under Rule 61

. D.I. 117. On February 24, 2022, Mr. Simpkins appealed the Summary Dismissal of his Second Motion for Postconviction Relief asking the Supreme Court to review his claims of due process violations and a “true miscarriage of justice.” D.I. 126. On July 1, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a Mandate affirming this Court’s ruling based on the reasoning included in the Summary Dismissal. D.I. 129

. 5 D.I. 62 and 63 ; D.I. 70 and 71 ; D.I. 94 and 96

. 6 D.I. 1 08 and 109

. 7 D.I. 133 and 134

. Mr. Simpkins appealed this Court’s denial of his Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence. D.I. 135. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a3

5. On October 12, 2023, Mr. Simpkins filed the instant Third Motion for

Postconviction Relief

, (the “Motion”) claiming the existence of newly discovered

evidence that establishes his actual innocence under Rule 61 . Specifically, Mr.

Simpkins claims Faion Howell, a witness of the shooting

, saw him leave the area

before the shooting occurred

— proving that he did not shoot the victim. 8

6. A motion for postconviction relief can be procedurally barred for time

limitations, successive motions, procedural defaults, and former adjudications. 9 If a

procedural bar exists, the Court will not consider the merits of the postconviction

claim unless the defendant can establish that the procedural bars are inapplicable

under Rule 61(d)(2). 10 Before addressing the merits of any claim of postconvictio n

relief, the Court must determine whether the Motion is procedurally barred under

Rule 61(i). 11

7. Here, t he Motion is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)( 1 ) for

untim eliness . Mr. Simpkins filed the M otion approximately nine years after his final

Mandate dismissing the appeal as Mr. Simpkins failed to file an Opening Brief. D.I.

141.

8 D.I. 138 at 6. Mr . Simpkins contemporaneously filed a Motion for Appointment

of Counsel on Oct ober 12, 2023. D.I. 139.

9 Super. Ct. Crim

. R. 61(i)(1)

- (4).

10 Younger v. State , 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990) (concluding defendants postconviction claims were procedurally barred and, therefore

, did not address the merits of the issues contained in the postconviction motion) ; see also, State v. Taylor

, 2016 WL 1714142, at *3 (Del. Super. April 26, 2016).

11 Id

.4

judgment of conviction. Rule 61(i)(2) also bars Mr. Simpkins’ motion because this

is his Third Motion for Postconviction Relief. Under this Rule, no second or

subsequent motion is permitted unless that second or subsequent motion s atisfies the

pleading requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of this

rule. 12

8. Though Mr. Simpkins contends Mr. Howell’s statement is new

evidence that creates a strong inference of his actual innocence, th e exception under

Rule 61(d)(2)(i) that would allow its admission is inapplicable since Mr. Simpkins

was not convicted after a trial but rather a guilty plea

. Since Rule 61 does not include

language relating to newly discovered evidence and subsequent moti ons after a

defendant pleads guilty

, the Motion is procedurally barred. 13

12 The pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (d)(2)(i)

- (ii) provides, in pertinent part: (2) Second or subsequent postconviction motions. A second or subsequent

motion under this rule shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion either: (i) pleads with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong
inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying

the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of c onstitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court

or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant's case and renders the

conviction or death sentence invalid.

13 D.I. 52.5

For the foregoing reasons

, Victor Simpkins’ Third M otion for P ostconviction

R elief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED

. Mr. Simpkins’ Motion for Appointment of

Counsel is now MOOT

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Winston Patricia A. Winston, Judge

Original to Prothonotary (Criminal Division)

c c: John W. Downs , Esq uire

, Department of Justice
Eugene J. Maurer , Esq uire
Andrew Vella, Esquire Victor Simpkins (SBI No. # 00526532 )