Title: Cleveland v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 380, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
VINCENT CLEVELAND,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 380, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0301006634 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 12, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of November 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Vincent Cleveland, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 23, 2009 order adopting the April 22, 2009 
report of the Superior Court Commissioner,1 which recommended that 
Cleveland’s postconviction motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61 be denied.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In June 2003, a Superior Court jury found Cleveland guilty of 
Trafficking in Cocaine and Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine.  He 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2 
was sentenced to a total of 15 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 10 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court 
affirmed Cleveland’s convictions on direct appeal.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
motion for postconviction relief, Cleveland claims that a) his attorney 
provided ineffective assistance at trial by failing to raise the defense of 
entrapment; b) his attorney also provided ineffective assistance by failing to 
object to the fact that the chemist who analyzed the cocaine was not called 
as a witness by the State; and c) he is actually innocent.  To the extent that 
Cleveland attempts to raise claims that were not raised in the Superior Court 
in the first instance, we decline to address them for the first time in this 
appeal.3 
 
(4) 
In postconviction proceedings, the Superior Court must first 
determine whether the procedural requirements of Rule 61 have been met 
before addressing the merits of the movant’s claims.4  Here, Cleveland’s 
claims are plainly barred by Rule 61(i)(1), which prohibits the Superior 
Court from considering a postconviction motion filed outside the applicable 
time period.  Under the version of Rule 61(i)(1) in effect at the time 
                                                 
2 Cleveland v. State, Del. Supr., No. 445, 2003, Steele, J. (Jan. 27, 2004). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 8.  Cleveland appears to raise the claim, for the first time in this appeal, that 
the jury should have been instructed on a lesser-included offense.  
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
 
3 
Cleveland’s convictions became final in February 2004, Cleveland had 3 
years in which to file his postconviction motion.  Because Cleveland did not 
file his postconviction motion until March 2009, more than 2 years after the 
3-year time deadline, his claims are time-barred.  Moreover, because the 
claims raised in his current motion were not raised in his first motion, his 
current motion is procedurally barred as repetitive under Rule 61(i)(2).  
Finally, because Cleveland has offered no reason why his claims should be 
considered on their merits in the interest of justice,5 advances no colorable 
claim of a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation that 
undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the 
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction,6 and offers no valid 
support for his claim of actual innocence, the Superior Court’s denial of his 
motion for postconviction relief must be affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice  
                                                 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).