IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) v. ) ID No. 1703008054 ) ) Cr. A. No. IN 17
- 0 4
- 0 119R1 KIYOHN M. CARROLL , ) Defendant. )
Submitted: January 4 , 20 24 * Decided: January 2 6 , 20 24 Upon Defendant Kiyohn M. Carroll ’s Motion for Postconviction Relief.

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

ORDER
This 2 6 th day of January , 20 24 , upon Defendant Kiyohn M

. Carroll’s Motion for Postconviction Relief (D.I. 25 ), and the record in this matter, it appears to the
Court that: (1) Kiyohn M. Carroll was indicted in April 2017 for two counts of Rape in the First Degree, seven counts of Rape in the Second Degree, one count of Rape in the Fourth Degree, two counts of Assault in the Third Degree , one count of Terroristic Threatening, and one count of Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree

. 1 The incidents that brought about these charges occurred in 2012 and 2016

* See n. 4 , supra . 1 D.I. 1.- 2

-

when he sexually assaulted two different men in events that began in Philadelphi a and ended in Delaware motel rooms. In November 2020

— after he had completed a Pennsylvania kidnapping sentence related to one of those attacks

— Mr . Carroll was transferred to Delaware to answer his charges here

. (2) Mr. Carroll eventually pleaded nolo contend ere to a single count of
fourth

- degree rape (as a lesser of first

- degree rape) in May 2022

. He did so in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and the State’s favorable sentencing
recommendation

— a time

- served Level V sentence. 2 His sentencing occurred several months later, on December 2, 2022 , and Mr. Carroll was sentenced to fifteen years at Level V suspended after two years and one month (served under the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 4202(k)) to be followed by six months at Level IV (DOC Discretion) and an extended Level III term

. 3 (3) Mr. Carroll docketed no direct appeal from his conviction or sentence. (4) Several months later, in March 2023, Mr. Carroll was before the Court
for a violation of his Level IV term

. 4 That violation was resolved

. 5 And Mr. Carroll
has now finished the Level IV portion of t his sentence and is presently serving his

2 D.I . 1 4

. 3 D.I. 1 7

. 4 D.I. 18

- 21. 5 See D.I. 20 and 22

.- 3

-

community supervision at Level III. 6 (5) Mr. Carroll filed the instant motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on J anuary 4, 20 24

. 7 In sum, Mr. Carroll s ays he is entitled to postconviction relief because his counsel was ineffective in the investigation and preparation of hi s case and “[he] thus was forced into taking the plea.” 8 (6) The Court has engaged in the preliminary consideration of Mr. Carroll ’s application required under Superior Court Criminal Rul e 61(d). The Court finds that, consistent with Rule s 61(i)(1) and (d)(5 ), his should be SUMMARILY DISMISSED because it is an unexcused untimely motion

. (7) When considering applications for postconviction relief under its criminal rules, this Court addresses any applicable procedural bars before turning to
the merits. 9 This policy protects the integrity of the Court’s rules and the finality of its judgments. 10 As the Court has observed, a ddressing the merits of a case that does

6 See D.I. 22.
7 Mr. Carroll stamped his postconviction motion at 5:33 p.m. on January 4, 2024, at the all

courts ’ “night drop” clock in the lobby of the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center. D.I. 25. It was clocked in and docketed by this Court’s Prothonot ary the next morning, January 5, 2024, at 8:56 a.m. Id. Assuming without deciding that Mr. Carroll ’s night

- clocking was sufficient , the Court uses the earlier of two potential filing dates

— January 4, 2024. 8 Def. Rule 61 Mot., at 3

- 4

. 9 See , e.g. , Ayers v. State , 802 A.2d 278, 281 (Del. 2002). See also Bailey v. State , 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991); Younger v. State , 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990) (citing Harris v. Reed , 489 U.S. 255 (1989)). 10 State v. Caldwell, 2009 WL 3069680, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept 14, 2009).- 4

-

not meet procedural requirements effectively renders our procedural rules meaningless. 11 (8) Mr . Carroll ’s motion for postconviction relief is controlled by
Rule 61 (i)(1) ’s time limitation

. 12 (9) Thereu nder, “[a] motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final.” 13 Mr. Carroll ’s rape conviction became final o n January 3 , 2023. 14 He then had one year from that date

—

or until January 3 , 202 4

— to f ile his postconviction motion . He did not file until January 4, 2024

— that is , a day too late. Accordingly, Mr. Carroll ’ s postconviction motion is plainly procedurally barred as untimely under Superior Court Criminal
Rule 61 (i)(1).

11 See State v. Chao , 2006 WL 2788180, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 2006) (“To protect the integrity of the procedural rules, the Court should not consider the merits of a postconviction claim where a procedural bar exists.”); State v. Jones , 2002 WL 31028584, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 10, 2002) (citing State v. Gattis , 1995 WL 790961, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 1995)) (same).
12 This Court ’s Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) states in relevant part: “Time limitation. A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final . . .” 13 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
14 See Jackson v. State , 654 A.2d 829, 833 (Del. 1995) (“ A defendant who does not take a direct appeal within thirty days of the time of sentencing is subj ect to a ‘ finality ’ date which begins when the time for direct appeal has expired. For such defendants the [one

- ]year period under Rule 61(i)(1) begins thirty days after sentencing.”) ; see also Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(a) (allowing that when the last day of a period prescribed or allowed by the Court’s criminal rules falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or other legal holiday, the prescribed period shall run until the end of the next day on which the prothonotary is open).- 5

-

(11) Now, the time bar does not “apply either to a claim that the c ourt lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that satisfies the pleading requireme nts of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) ” of Rule 61

. 15 But Mr. Carroll doesn ’ t claim that this Court lacked jurisdiction, that “new evidence exists that creates a strong inference” of actual innocence, 16 n or that “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to [his] case and renders [his] conviction . . . invalid.” 17 Instead, Mr. Carroll ’s is a run

- of

- the

- mill ineffecti veness claim that his counsel’s alleged failings prompted his plea. A s such , his untimely m otion is undoubtedly procedurally barred by Criminal Rule s 61( i )( 1 ). (12) Having engaged in the preliminary consideration of his motion expected under Rule 61(d), the Court finds that “it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that [ Mr. Carroll ] is no t entitled to relief.” 18

15 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 16 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i) ; id . at (i)(5). See State v. Madison, 2022 WL 3011377, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. July 29, 2022), a’ffd , 2022 WL 17982946 (Del. Dec. 29, 2022) (explaining Rule 61’s “new evid ence standard” adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court the year before in Purnell v. State , 254 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2021)).
17 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (d)(2)(ii). See also id . at (i)(5). 18 Id. at (d)(5).- 6

-

(13) A ccordingly, Mr. Carroll ’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED

. 19
SO ORDERED this 2 6 th day of January , 20 24 .

P aul R. W allace, J udge
Original to Prothonotary

cc: Mr. Kiyohn M. Carroll , pro se Diana A. Dunn, Deputy Attorney General

19 Id. (“Summary dismissal. If it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief, the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal and cause the movant to be notified.”).