Opinion ID: 2361087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing and Expansion of the Record

Text: Gattis argues that the Superior Court denied him due process when it denied his motions for an evidentiary hearing and an expansion of the record. Gattis acknowledges that the Superior Court did conduct a limited hearing on the sole issue of whether his attorneys' failure to listen to a taped interview between Gattis and Elizabeth Dewson, a psycho-forensic evaluator, rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. But Gattis argues that the Superior Court violated its own Rule 61(c)(1) [62] when it did not return his motion to him with a statement of the reason for its return so that Gattis could have an opportunity to supplement the record and provide legal argument concerning the bases for his motions. As the State contends, under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, the Superior Court, in its discretion, is to determine whether summary disposition is appropriate. [63] Moreover, Rule 61(c)(1) plainly states that the motion is to be returned to the movant with a statement of the reason for its return, only if the judge so directs. Here, the Superior Court, in its discretion, did not deem it necessary to return the motion to Gattis. This was not an abuse of the Superior Court's discretion in light of the fact that the Superior Court did conduct a limited hearing on that evidence it deemed sufficiently significant to warrant hearing.