Opinion ID: 2264839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Shelton's Motion for Postconviction Relief without Conducting an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Shelton contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion in dismissing his motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. According to Shelton, all issues raised by the defendant require a fact-finding hearing. [230] Shelton appears to be arguing that a postconviction evidentiary hearing should be required in all capital cases. We review the Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion. [231] Questions of law are reviewed de novo. [232] In a postconviction proceeding, the decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is a determination made by the trial court. [233] As we stated in Outten, While the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing in a postconviction proceeding is within the discretion of the Superior Court, in capital cases, holding such an evidentiary hearing should be the norm, not the exception. [234] If, however, it appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief, then summary disposition of the motion is appropriate. [235] Given the trial judge's extensive familiarity with the background of this case, we are unable to conclude that he abused his discretion in determining that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary.