Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 6, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK W. SMITH, JR., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 6, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 93007368DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 31, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 13, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of June 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Frederick W. Smith, Jr., filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s December 19, 2005 order denying his 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In November 1993, a Superior Court jury found Smith guilty of 
two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree, Unlawful 
Sexual Penetration in the Third Degree, and Assault in the Third Degree.  He 
was sentenced to a total of 32 years of Level V incarceration, followed by 
 
2
probation.  This Court affirmed Smith’s convictions and sentences on direct 
appeal.1  The record reflects that this is Smith’s eighth motion for 
postconviction relief. 
 
(3) 
The Superior Court correctly denied Smith’s motion.  Not only 
was the motion untimely,2 it was procedurally barred.3  Moreover, Smith’s 
attempt to avoid the procedural bars by claiming a double jeopardy violation 
is unavailing.4  Smith argues that his convictions of second-degree unlawful 
sexual intercourse and third-degree assault constitute a violation of double 
jeopardy because both charges contain the element of infliction of physical 
injury upon the victim.5  However, the record reflects that a physical 
altercation occurred between Smith and the victim prior to the sexual 
offense.  Because there was independent evidence supporting each of these 
charges, no double jeopardy violation occurred.6     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the  
 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
  
                                                 
1 Smith v. State, 669 A.2d 1 (Del. 1995). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2), (3) and (4). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 774, 611. 
6 Spencer v. State, 868 A.2d 821, 823 (Del. 2005); Whitfield v. State, 867 A.2d 168, 171 
(Del. 2004).