IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE , ) )
v. ) ID No. 0805035299 ) MONIR GEORGE , ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER
Date Submitted: July 10 , 2020 Date Decided: August 31 , 2020 Upon consideration of Defendant’s Third Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner’s Report and Reco mmendations , Defendant’s Appeal From
Commissioner’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations , and the record in this case,
IT APPEARS THAT : 1. On October 27, 2009, following a bench trial, the Court found Defendant Guilty But Mentally Ill on the following charges: Murder First Degree, Attempted Murder First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (three counts) , and Reckless Endangering. 1 Defendant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. 2

1 D.I. 92. 2 D.I. 119.2

2. On October 7, 2011, Defendant filed his first Motion for Postconviction Relief, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (the “First Motion”). 3 The Superior Court denied the First Motion but on appeal, the Supreme Court
remanded the matter. 4 The Court appointed counsel to represent Defendant on the

m otion, additional briefing ensu ed, and the Superior Court again denied the First
Motion. 5 That decision was affirmed on appeal. 6
3. On July 5, 2 018, Defendant filed his second Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Second Motion”). 7 In the Second Motion, Defendant argued “newly discovered evidence” relating to the State’s ballistic expert. 8 The Court denied the Second Motion, which was later affirmed on appeal. 9
4

. On March 20, 2020, Defendant filed his Third Motion for
Postconviction Relief (the “Third Motion”) , along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, a Motion for Evidentiary Heari ng, and a Memorandum of Law. 10
Similar to Defendant’s Second Motion , Defendant again argues “newly discovered evidence” justifies vacation of his conviction and a new trial

.

3 D.I. 121. 4 D.I. 129, 143. 5 D.I. 158

. 6 D.I. 169. 7 D.I. 170. 8 Id. 9 D.I. 178, 183, 189. 10 D.I. 190, 191, 192, 195.3

5

. These M otions were referred to a Superior Court Commissioner pursuant to 19 Del . C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Procedure Rule 62. On May 11, 2020, the Commissioner issued her Report and Recommendations as to Defendant’s M otions

. 11 The Commissioner recommend s that Defendant’s Third
Motion for Postconviction Relief be summar ily dismissed, Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel be denied, and Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing be denied. 12
6

. The Commissioner determined that the Third Motion is procedurally barred because it was filed more than one year from the date of the Supreme Court’s Mandate on direct appeal. 13 In addition, the Commissioner determined that the Third Motion did not present any new evidence and Defendant failed to meet the pleading requirements of demonstrating that his “newly discovered evidence” exculpates him
of the acts giving rise to his convictions

. 14
7

. On July 10, 2020, Defendant appealed the Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendations , reasserting that the “newly discovered evidence” of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct warrants t he Court to grant him a new trial

. 15

11 D.I. 196. 12 Id. 13 Id. a t 4. 14 Id. at 5

– 6. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)( 2) (Defendant must plead with particularity that the new evidence establishes a strong inference that he is actually innocent in fact of the acts leading to the conviction). 15 D.I. 199

.4

8

. Pursuant to Rule 62, the Court “shall make a de novo review determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.” 16
9

. In considering Defendant’s appeal, the Court finds that Defendant’s appeal does not raise additional arguments, but instead reiterates arguments made in
his Third Motion , which the Commissioner already considered and rejected

. 10. The Court the finds the Commissioner is correct tha t Defendant’s Third Motion is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 62(m)(2) and (i)(1). Further, t he Court agrees with the Commissioner’s determination that Defendant’s arguments do not meet any exceptions to these procedural bars, and therefore, his Thir d Motion should be summarily dismissed as repetitive.
N OW, THEREFORE , after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Com m issioner’s Report and
Recommendation s, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Report
and Recommendation s are adopted by the Court and Defendant’s Third Motion for
Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED , Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED , and Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED

.

16 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(iv).5

IT IS S O ORDERED. 

# Jan R. Jurden
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary: cc: Monir George (SBI# 00618980) Gregory Smith , DAG