Title: Harden v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 293, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WALLACE E. HARDEN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 293, 2002  
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9510018718  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 12, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Wallace Harden, was convicted in 
1996 of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of second 
degree unlawful sexual contact involving his minor daughters.  This Court 
affirmed Harden’s convictions on appeal.1  In his first motion for 
postconviction relief, Harden argued, in part, that the Superior Court lacked 
jurisdiction over his offenses because Harden’s victims were his daughters 
and only Family Court has jurisdiction over the crime of incest.  The 
                                                 
1 Harden v. State, Del. Supr., No. 107, 1997, Holland, J. (May 29, 1998). 
 
2
Superior Court denied Harden’s motion, and this Court affirmed that 
decision.2  Harden filed a second motion for postconviction relief, again 
alleging that Family Court, and not the Superior Court, had jurisdiction over 
his offenses.  The Superior Court summarily denied Harden’s motion.  This 
appeal ensued.   
(2) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective contentions 
and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior 
Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned 
decision dated May 15, 2002.  Harden’s motion clearly was untimely.3   
Moreover, the argument raised in Harden’s motion, although refined, was 
previously adjudicated in his first postconviction motion.4  The Superior 
Court, therefore, did not err in concluding that Harden’s claim was 
procedurally barred.   
 
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/ E. Norman Veasey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Harden v. State, Del. Supr., No. 75, 2001, Walsh, J. (June 28, 2001). 
3 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1). 
4 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(4).