IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

MAURICE J. WILLIAMS, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 587, 2016 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 9901005150 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: March 7, 2017

 Decided: April 18, 2017 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

This 18th day of April 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 

brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 

that: 

(1) The appellant, Maurice J. Williams, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief under 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1

 The State of Delaware has filed a motion to 

affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 

Williams’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. 

 

1

State v. Williams, 2016 WL 6837741 (Del. Nov. 21, 2016). 
2

(2) In April 1999, Williams pled guilty to Burglary in the Second Degree 

and Robbery in the Second Degree in Criminal ID No. 9901005150. Williams was 

sentenced as follows: (i) for Burglary in the Second Degree, eight mandatory years 

of Level V incarceration under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k); and (ii) for Robbery in the 

Second Degree, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after four 

mandatory years under Section 4204(k) for one year of Level IV Halfway House. 

On January 28, 2010, the Superior Court corrected the Robbery in the Second 

Degree sentence to remove the Section 4204(k) requirement and to suspend the 

Level V portion of the sentence immediately for the balance to be served at Level 

IV Halfway House. 

(3) After Williams left the Level IV correctional center on a pass and did 

not return, he was charged with a violation of probation in Criminal ID No. 

9901005150 and indicted for Escape After Conviction in Criminal ID No. 

1011002501. The Superior Court found Williams violated his probation and 

sentenced him to two years of Level V incarceration. This Court affirmed the 

Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.2 

(4) In Criminal ID No. 1011002501, a Superior Court jury found 

Williams guilty of Escape After Conviction. Williams was sentenced, as a habitual 

offender under 11 Del. C.§ 4214(a), to eight years of Level V incarceration,

 

2 Williams v. State, 2012 WL 2914041 (Del. July 16, 2012). 
3

followed by six months of Level IV Work Release. This Court affirmed the 

Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.3

 

(5) On November 3, 2016, Williams filed his first motion for 

postconviction relief under Rule 61 in Criminal ID No. 9901005150. Although 

Williams filed the motion in Criminal ID No. 9901005150, he challenged his 

conviction for Escape After Conviction in Criminal ID No. 1011002501. The 

Superior Court summarily dismissed Williams’ motion for postconviction relief.4

 

This appeal followed. 

(6) This Court reviews the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction 

relief for abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.

5

 The Court must 

consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive 

issues.6 Williams argues, as he did below, that he could not be convicted of Escape 

After Conviction in Criminal ID No. 1011002501 because he was serving an 

illegal Level IV sentence in Criminal ID No. 9901005150 when he left the Level 

IV correctional center. 

(7) As an initial matter, we note that Williams filed his motion for 

postconviction relief in the wrong criminal case. Because Williams challenged his 

conviction for Escape After Conviction in Criminal ID No. 1011002501, he should 

 

3 Williams v. State, 2014 WL 708445 (Del. Feb. 19, 2014). 

4

State v. Williams, 2016 WL 6837741 (Del. Nov. 21, 2016). 

5 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 

6

Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
4

have filed his motion for postconviction relief in that case, not Criminal ID No. 

9901005150. In any event, Williams’ motion for postconviction relief was 

procedurally barred under Rule 61. 

(8) Under Rule 61(i)(1), a movant may not file a motion for 

postconviction relief more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final. 

Williams filed his motion for postconviction relief on November 3, 2016, more 

than one year after his conviction in Criminal ID No. 1011002501 became final on 

March 7, 2014 (the date of the issuance of the mandate in Williams v. State, 2014 

WL 708445 (Del. Feb. 19, 2014).7 Rule 61(i)(1) does not apply to a claim that the 

Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or a claim that satisfies the pleading 

requirements of Rule 61(d)(2).8 A movant meets the pleading requirements of 

Rule 61(d)(2) if he pleads with particularity new evidence that creates a strong 

inference of actual innocence9 or a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

on collateral review, that renders his conviction invalid.10 Williams failed to plead 

a claim meeting any of these requirements. The Superior Court did not err 

therefore in denying his motion for postconviction relief. 

 

7

 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2) (providing that a judgment of conviction becomes final upon the 

issuance of a mandate or order finally determining the case on direct review when the defendant 

files a direct appeal). 

8

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

9

 Super. Ct. Crim. 61(d)(2)(i). 

10 Super. Ct. Crim. 61(d)(2)(ii). 
5

(9) We note that Williams has unsuccessfully argued multiple times that 

his modified sentence in Criminal ID No. 9901005150 was illegal.11 We warn 

Williams that if he continues to file appeals from untimely and repetitive claims in 

the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of 

the Court. We also warn Williams to be mindful of Rule 61(j).12

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 

and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

 Justice 

 

11 See, e.g., Williams v. State, 2014 WL 5020247, at *2 (Del. Oct. 7, 2014) (affirming Superior 

Court’s denial of Williams’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on his claim that his 

detention was illegal because the 2010 modified sentence was illegal); Williams v. State, 2012 

WL 4663065, at *2 (Del. Oct. 2, 2012) (affirming Superior Court’s denial of Williams’ motion 

for correction of his 2010 modified sentence); Williams v. State, 2012 WL 2914041, at *2-3 

(Del. July 16, 2012) (rejecting Williams’ claim that he could not have violated his probation 

because his 2010 modified sentence was illegal). 

12 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order 

requiring the movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from 

public funds.”).