Title: Winn v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 594, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HILLARD M. WINN, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 594, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and  
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0603002909 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 29, 2015 
Decided: 
March 30, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This 30th day of March 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Hillard M. Winn, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s October 2, 2014 order that summarily dismissed his first motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”) and 
denied his motion for appointment of counsel and “Motion for Evidentiary 
Hearing.”1  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
                                
1 State v. Winn, 2014 WL 5025792 (Del. Super. Oct. 2, 2014). 
2 
 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Winn’s opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that New Castle County Police arrested Winn on 
March 5, 2006 on charges that he had, earlier that day, entered the apartment of a 
female acquaintance, where he assaulted and threatened to kill her.  In September 
2006, following a four-day jury trial, Winn was convicted of Burglary in the First 
Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 
Assault in the Third Degree, and Terroristic Threatening.  On January 3, 2007, the 
Superior Court declared Winn a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total of 
thirty-four years at Level V suspended after thirty-two years for one year at Level 
IV suspended after six months for probation.  On direct appeal, this Court affirmed 
the Superior Court judgment,3 and on June 2, 2008, the United States Supreme 
Court denied certiorari review.4 Accordingly, Winn had until June 2, 2009 to file a 
timely motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.5 
                                
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Winn v. State, 2008 WL 223257 (Del. Jan. 28, 2008). 
4 Winn v. Delaware, 553 U.S. 1085 (2008). 
5 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (providing that a motion for postconviction relief must be 
filed within one year after the judgment of conviction is final); Id. at (m)(3) (providing that, if a 
defendant files a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of this Court’s mandate or order, a 
conviction is final when the United States Supreme Court issues a mandate or order disposing of 
the case). 
3 
 
(3) 
Winn did not file a timely motion for postconviction relief under Rule 
61.  He did, however, file a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States 
District Court and a motion for correction of illegal sentence in the Superior Court.  
Winn’s habeas petition, in relevant part, raised a claim under the Fourth 
Amendment, i.e., that the New Castle County Police knowingly or recklessly relied 
on false statements to establish probable cause for the arrest warrant.  Also, in 
connection with that claim, Winn requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware 
(hereinafter “Franks hearing”).6 
(4) 
In 2010, the Superior Court denied Winn’s motion for correction of 
illegal sentence,7 and on appeal we affirmed.8  In 2011, the District Court denied 
Winn’s habeas petition, concluding, in relevant part, that Winn had a “full and fair 
opportunity” to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the Superior Court and on 
direct appeal in this Court.9 
(5) 
Winn turned next to the Superior Court, filing on July 12, 2013, a 
“Motion for Evidentiary Hearing,” where he again raised a Fourth Amendment 
claim and requested a Franks hearing.  Upon preliminary review, the Superior 
                                
6 See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (requiring a hearing when a defendant 
has made a “substantial preliminary showing” that the police knowingly or “with reckless 
disregard for the truth” relied on a false statement to establish probable cause). 
7 State v. Winn, 2010 WL 2477867 (Del. Super. June 17, 2010). 
8 Winn v. State, 2011 WL 556439 (Del. Feb. 16, 2011). 
9 Winn v. Phelps, 2011 WL 4543968 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2011). 
4 
 
Court determined that the “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” in effect sought a 
postconviction remedy under Rule 61.  Accordingly, by order dated July 19, 2013, 
the Superior Court, under Rule 61(c), returned the “Motion for Evidentiary 
Hearing” to Winn with a “notice of noncompliance” and provided him with a 
required form and instructions on how to properly file a motion for postconviction 
relief.10 
(6) 
Eleven months later, on June 17, 2014, Winn filed a motion for 
postconviction relief and a motion for appointment of counsel.  Also, Winn refiled 
his “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing.”  Winn’s postconviction motion raised nine 
claims, including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, discovery 
violations, and due process violations occurring at trial and at sentencing. 
(7) 
On October 2, 2014, the Superior Court summarily dismissed Winn’s 
postconviction motion as untimely filed under Rule 61(i)(1), procedurally barred 
under Rule 61(i)(3) or (4), and otherwise without merit.11  The Superior Court 
denied Winn’s motion for appointment of counsel and “Motion for Evidentiary 
Hearing” on the basis that Rule 61 did not require either the appointment of 
counsel for an untimely postconviction motion or an evidentiary hearing, and that 
                                
10 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b), (c). 
11 State v. Winn, 2014 WL 5025792 (Del. Super. Oct. 2, 2014). 
5 
 
both motions were rendered moot by the summary dismissal of the postconviction 
motion.12  This appeal followed. 
(8) 
On appeal, Winn claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion 
when it did not apply Rule 61(b)(6) to his motion for postconviction relief and 
motion for appointment of counsel.  Also, Winn claims that the Superior Court 
abused its discretion when it did not rule on the merits of his Fourth Amendment 
claim as set forth in his “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” as refiled on June 17, 
2014. 
(9) 
Under Rule 61(b)(6), a motion for postconviction relief “may be 
amended as a matter of course at any time before a response is filed or thereafter 
by leave of court, which shall be freely given when justice so requires.”13  In this 
case, according to Winn, had the Superior Court applied Rule 61(b)(6) and deemed 
his June 17, 2014 motion for postconviction relief and motion for appointment of 
counsel as filed on July 12, 2013, the date he initially filed the “Motion for 
Evidentiary Hearing,” the court would have been required to appoint counsel under 
the version of Rule 61(e)(1) in effect on July 12, 2013.14  Winn’s claim is without 
merit.    
                                
12 Id., at *4. 
13 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(6). 
14 On July 12, 2013, Rule 61(e)(1) provided that the Superior Court would appoint counsel for an 
indigent movant’s first postconviction proceeding.  In February 2014, Rule 61(e)(1) was 
6 
 
(10) The Superior Court did not accept Winn’s “Motion for Evidentiary 
Hearing” as a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.  Rather, the court 
returned  the “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” to Winn with a “notice of 
noncompliance” and instructions on how to properly file a motion under Rule 61.  
Under these circumstances, the Superior Court was not required, under Rule 
61(b)(6) or otherwise, to consider Winn’s June 17, 2014 motion for postconviction 
relief and motion for appointment of counsel as filed on July 12, 2013, the initial 
filing date of the “Motion for Evidentiary hearing.” 
(11) Nor was the Superior Court required to consider the merits of Winn’s 
Fourth Amendment claim as set forth in his “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” as 
refiled on June 17, 2014.  Under Rule 61, the Superior Court has broad discretion 
when determining whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.15 
(12) In this case, the Superior Court returned Winn’s initial “Motion for 
Evidentiary hearing” with instructions to raise the claims, namely the Fourth 
Amendment claim, in a motion for postconviction relief. 16  Rather than include the 
Fourth Amendment claim in his motion for postconviction relief, as required by 
                                                                                                     
amended to limit the appointment of counsel to a “first timely postconviction proceeding” 
(emphasis added). 
15 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h). 
16 See id. at (b)(2) (governing content of motion for postconviction relief) (“The motion shall 
specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the movant and of which the movant has, 
or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have knowledge, and shall set forth in 
summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.”)). 
7 
 
Rule 61 and as instructed, Winn chose to refile the previously rejected “Motion for 
Evidentiary Hearing.”  Because Winn’s Fourth Amendment claim was not properly 
raised in the “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” as initially filed on July 12, 2013 
and as refiled on June 17, 2014, the Superior Court’s denial of the “Motion for 
Evidentiary Hearing,” without considering the merits of the Fourth Amendment 
claim, was not an abuse of discretion.  Moreover, because the Fourth Amendment 
claim was considered and rejected by the District Court in its September 29, 2011 
memorandum opinion denying Winn’s habeas petition, we conclude, in this appeal, 
that the Fourth Amendment claim is procedurally barred as formerly adjudicated 
under Rule 61 without exception.17 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                
17 Id. at (i)(4), (5).