IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

)

STATE OF DELAWARE )

) I.D. No. 0704004317

v. )

)

LAWRENCE L. MICHAELS, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: December 8, 2015

Decided: February 29, 2016

On Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief.

DENIED.

ORDER

Gregory E. Smith, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 

Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

Lawrence L. Michaels, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, 

Delaware, pro se.

COOCH, R.J.

This 29th day of February, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant’s 

Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

1. On March 7, 2008, Defendant Lawrence Michaels was found 

guilty of one count of Robbery First Degree, as well was nine

other offenses.

1

 On June 27, 2008, Defendant was sentenced to 

19 years at Level V with decreasing levels of supervision to 

follow. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed Defendant’s 

 1 Verdict Sheet; D.I. 22 (Mar. 7, 2008).
2

conviction and sentence on March 17, 2009.

2

 Defendant then 

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district 

court denied on February 19, 2013.3

2. Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 24, 2015. Defendant 

only takes issue with his conviction for Robbery First Degree. 

He does not assert any grounds for postconviction relief for any 

of the other nine convictions for which he is sentenced. 

3. Defendant was indicted for Attempted Robbery First Degree on 

May 7, 2007.

4

 On February 19, 2008, this Court granted the 

State’s motion to amend the charge of Attempted Robbery First 

Degree to Robbery First Degree. Defendant claims that the 

amendment indictment violated “both [his] federal and state 

constitutional rights,” because the amended charge was not 

brought in front of a grand jury. Defendant asserts that this 

“Court lacks jurisdiction to require additional elements not 

issued by the grand jury.”5

 He further asserts that changing the 

charge from Attempted Robbery First Degree to Robbery First 

Degree violated Superior Court Criminal Rule 7(e). 

4. Under Rule 61(i), a motion for postconviction relief can be 

procedurally barred for time limitations, successive motions, 

procedural defaults, and former adjudications.6

 If a procedural 

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

postconviction claim unless the Defendant can show that the 

procedural bars are inapplicable.

5. Rule 61(i)(5) provides that consideration of otherwise 

procedurally barred claims is limited to claims that the Court 

lacked jurisdiction, or to a “colorable claim that there was a 

miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that 

undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or 

 2 Michaels v. State, 970 A.2d 223 (Del. 2009).

3 Michaels v. Phelps, 924 F.Supp. 566 (D. Del. 2013). 

4 Indictment; D.I. 2 (May 7, 2007). 

5 Def.’s Mot. For Postconviction Relief at 1. 

6 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4).
3

fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of 

conviction.”7

6. Defendant’s Motion is procedurally barred for several reasons. 

First, Defendant’s Motion was not timely filed. Defendant’s

conviction and sentence became final on March 17, 2009.8

 

Defendant did not file this Motion until June 24, 2015, more than 

six years after his conviction was finalized. Therefore, his claim 

is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(1), because his Motion 

exceeds the one-year time limitation.

7. Defendant’s Motion is also barred under the procedural default. 

Defendant failed to assert that this Court lacked jurisdiction in 

the proceedings leading up to his judgment of conviction and in 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Defendant has also failed 

to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the procedural 

default. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion is procedurally barred. 

8. Finally, although Defendant claims in his Motion that this Court 

lacked jurisdiction, his argument is a spurious attempt to 

overcome the procedural bars of Rule 61(i)(5). When a 

defendant asserts a jurisdictional challenge that is meritless, he is 

not entitled to consideration of claims at would otherwise be 

procedurally barred.9

 Therefore, the Court will not address 

Defendant’s assertion because his claim is baseless. 

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).

8 Michaels, 970 A.2d 223 (Del. 2009). 

9 Harden v. State, 782 A.2d 264, 2001 WL 791961, at* 1 (Del. Supr. June 28, 2001) (“To 

the extend [the defendant] seeks to avoid the procedural bar by characterizing his claims 

as ‘jurisdictional,’ that effort is unavailing because the claims are baseless.”). 
4

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Investigative Services