Title: Folks v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 293, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOE LOUIS FOLKS, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 293, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 30103873DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 17, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  December 8, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of December 2005, 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, Joe Louis Folks, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 2, 2005 order denying his second motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  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 face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
2
 
(2) 
In February 1993, a Superior Court jury found Folks guilty of 
two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree.  He was 
sentenced to 35 years of Level V incarceration.  This Court affirmed Folks’ 
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Folks claims that: a) his arrest was 
unconstitutional; b) the arresting officer committed perjury at the 
suppression hearing and at trial; c) there was insufficient evidence to support 
his convictions; d) his counsel was ineffective during the preliminary 
hearing, arraignment, suppression hearing, and trial stages; and e) the 
Superior Court abused its discretion by not scheduling an evidentiary 
hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.   
 
(4) 
Folks’ convictions became final on July 18, 1994, following 
this Court’s issuance of the mandate.2  At that time, Folks had three years in 
which to file a timely postconviction motion.3  His instant motion, which 
was filed in the Superior Court on May 23, 2005, clearly was untimely.  
There is, moreover, no basis upon which to excuse Folks’ untimely filing, as 
he has presented no evidence of a “colorable claim that there was a 
miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined 
                                                 
1 Folks v. State, Del. Supr., No. 301, 1993, Walsh, J. (June 28, 1994). 
2 Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829 (Del. 1995). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1).  This rule has since been amended to provide for a one 
year period in which to file a postconviction motion.   
 
3
the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings 
leading to the judgment of conviction.”4  The record also reflects that Folks’ 
claims previously were raised in his first postconviction motion, precluding 
their consideration here.5  We, finally, find no abuse of discretion on the part 
of the Superior Court in not scheduling an evidentiary hearing on Folks’ 
untimely ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Folks’ 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
     
 
 
                                                 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4).