Title: Getz v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 413, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES R. GETZ, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 413, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court of 
§  the State of Delaware, in and for 
§  Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 88K00683DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: November 2, 2011 
 
Decided: November 22, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 22nd day of November 2011, 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, Charles R. Getz, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s July 13, 2011 order adopting the December 16, 
2010 report of the Commissioner, which recommended that Getz’s second 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61 be denied.1  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
(2) The record before us reflects that, in August 1989, Getz was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Rape in the First Degree in 
connection with the rape of his 11-year old daughter.3  He was sentenced to 
life in prison.  This Court affirmed Getz’s conviction on direct appeal.4  This 
Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Getz’s first 
postconviction motion.5 
 
(3) The record before us also reflects that, while in prison, Getz 
refused to participate in a sex offender counseling group and lost certain 
privileges as a result.  Getz filed lawsuits against prison officials in federal 
and state court challenging the loss of those privileges.  All of his claims 
were unsuccessful.  Approximately 20 years after his conviction, Getz filed 
his second motion for postconviction relief claiming that his lawsuits had 
generated new evidence of his mental illness.   
 
(4) In its denial of Getz’s second postconviction motion, the Superior 
Court, relying on the Commissioner’s findings, determined that Getz had 
provided no evidence that he was mentally ill at the time of his crime.  The 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 This Court had remanded the matter to the Superior Court for a second trial.  Getz v. 
State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988). 
4 Getz v. State, Del. Supr., No. 364, 1989, Walsh, J. (Sept. 13, 1990).  
5 Getz v. State, Del. Supr., No. 301, 1994, Veasey, C.J. (Oct. 31, 1994).  
 
3
Superior Court concluded that Getz’s claims were time-barred pursuant to 
Rule 61(i)(1) and that Getz’s purported constitutional claims failed to 
overcome the time bar pursuant to Rule 61(i)(5)’s “miscarriage of justice” 
exception. 
 
(5) In his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
postconviction motion, Getz asserts a number of claims that may fairly be 
summarized as follows: the Superior Court abused its discretion by a) failing 
to reach the merits of his claims; b) referring the matter to a Commissioner 
and adopting the Commissioner’s recommendations; and c) applying the 
time bar when the State did not respond to Getz’s postconviction claims.  
Getz also claims that his due process rights were violated. 
 
(6) This Court has ruled that, prior to addressing the substantive 
merits of a defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, the Superior Court 
must first determine whether the procedural requirements of Rule 61 have 
been met.6  As such, the Superior Court properly applied Rule 61(i)(1)’s 
time bar to Getz’s claims.  Moreover, in the absence of any evidence of a 
miscarriage of justice due to a violation of Getz’s constitutional rights under 
Rule 61(i)(5), the Superior Court properly determined that the time bar could 
                                                 
6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
 
4
not be overcome.  We, therefore, conclude that Getz’s first claim is without 
merit. 
 
(7) Getz’s second claim is that the Superior Court improperly 
referred this matter to a Commissioner and thereafter adopted the 
Commissioner’s recommendations.  Both Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 512 and 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 authorize the Commissioner to submit 
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of 
postconviction motions.  Moreover, the Superior Court, upon a de novo 
review of the Commissioner’s report, may accept those findings and 
recommendations in their entirety.  In the absence of any evidence of error 
or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court, we conclude that 
this claim, too, is without merit. 
 
(8) Finally, Getz claims, in essence, that he is entitled to a default 
judgment on his postconviction motion because the State failed to respond to 
his claims.  Under Rule 61(f), the Superior Court must order the State to 
respond to a defendant’s postconviction motion or “take such other action as 
the judge deems appropriate.”  The record reflects that the Superior Court 
did not order a response in this case, determining in its discretion that it 
could rule on the motion without the State’s input.  In the absence of any 
 
5
error or abuse of discretion on the part of either the Superior Court or the 
State, we also conclude that Getz’s third claim is without merit. 
 
(9) It is manifest on the face of the 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, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
        Justice