Title: Pauls v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 520, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
DONALD PAULS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 520, 2000 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. S83-01-0250 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 5, 2001 
  Decided:   March 6, 2001 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Donald Pauls, filed this appeal from the 
October 10, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.1  The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the judgment 
                                                          
 
1Pauls’ “motion for writ of error”is essentially a motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 
 
 
-2- 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Pauls’ 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In this appeal, Pauls claims that he was convicted improperly of six 
counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.3  
These convictions were based upon Pauls’ possession of two deadly weapons (a 
bludgeon and a broken bottle)4 during the commission of the three separate 
felonies of robbery, assault and burglary.  Pauls contends that it is contrary to the 
intent of the legislature to permit separate convictions on this basis and, 
therefore, asks that three of his six convictions for possession of a deadly weapon 
during the commission of a felony be vacated. 
                                                          
 
2Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
311 Del. C. § 1447. 
411 Del. C. § 222(5). 
 
 
-3- 
(3) 
In 1983 Pauls was convicted of first degree robbery, first degree 
assault, second degree burglary, possession of a deadly weapon by a person 
prohibited and six counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the 
commission of a felony.  This Court affirmed Pauls’ convictions and sentences on 
direct appeal.5  This Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s subsequent denial 
of Pauls’ first motion for postconviction relief.6 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, this Court must first 
determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule 
before addressing any substantive issues.7  Claims that are filed more than three 
years after the judgment of conviction is final are barred8 unless the defendant 
can show that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or that there is a colorable 
claim of a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that 
undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the 
                                                          
 
5Pauls v. State, Del. Supr., 476 A.2d 157 (1984). 
6Pauls v. State, Del. Supr., No. 377, 1987, Christie, C.J., 1989 WL 8105 (Jan.12, 1989) 
(ORDER). 
7Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991). 
8Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
 
 
-4- 
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.9  As this Court has held 
previously, Pauls’ convictions of six counts of possession of a deadly weapon 
during the commission of a felony were not unconstitutional.10  Pauls’ claim is, 
thus, time-barred. 
                                                          
 
9Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
10Pauls v. State, Del. Supr., No. 377, 1987, Christie, C.J., 1989 WL 8105 (Jan. 12, 1989) 
(ORDER). 
 
 
-5- 
(5) 
Moreover, Pauls’ claim is procedurally barred because he failed to 
assert the claim in his direct appeal and has failed to show cause for relief and 
prejudice from a violation of his rights.11  Pauls’ claim is also procedurally barred 
because it has already been adjudicated in a previous postconviction proceeding 
and reconsideration of the claim is not warranted in the interest of justice.12  
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Pauls’ opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                          
 
11Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3). 
12Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4).