Opinion ID: 2279580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suppression Motion Untimely Drug and Weapons' Convictions

Text: Barnett's initial challenge is directed at all of his convictions for drug-related and weapons' offenses. According to Barnett, the Superior Court improperly refused to hear the merits of his trial attorney's motion to suppress the introduction into evidence of certain physical items that were seized by the police. The Superior Court denied the motion to suppress because it was not filed on time. The record reflects that Barnett was indicted in July 1995. A public defender was appointed to represent him. A privately retained attorney was substituted as Barnett's trial counsel on September 15, 1995. Barnett's new trial counsel filed a motion to suppress on the morning of trial, November 13, 1995. The record reflects, however, that the pre-trial order stated that all motions were to be filed by September 20, 1995. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the motion to suppress had to be filed by that date. The Superior Court concluded that the change in representation did not excuse Barnett's new trial counsel from reviewing the record and filing a timely motion to suppress. The trial judge did not find any exceptional circumstances present. Accordingly, the trial judge declined to hear the merits of the untimely motion to suppress. The record reflects that action was a proper exercise of the broad discretion vested in the Superior Court to enforce its rules of procedure and pre-trial orders. See Super.Ct.Crim.R. 12(b)(3), 17.1; see also Gebhart v. Ernest DiSabatino & Sons, Inc., Del. Supr., 264 A.2d 157 (1970). Barnett acknowledges that he cannot raise the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel as an issue in this direct appeal. Duross v. State, Del.Supr., 494 A.2d 1265 (1985). Instead, he has requested this Court to invoke the plain error interest of justice exception provided for in Supreme Court Rule 8. [2] We decline to do so. The appropriate remedy is a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 61 of the Superior Court's Rules of Criminal Procedure. Cf. Dixon v. State, Del. Supr., 581 A.2d 1115 (1990); Braxton v. State, Del.Supr., 479 A.2d 831 (1984). Accordingly, the judgments that were entered following Barnett's drug convictions are affirmed.