Opinion ID: 1915707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timely Motion for Post-Conviction Relief

Text: Staats argues that the Superior Court erred when it concluded that his motion for post-conviction relief was time-barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1). Rule 61(i)(1) relevantly provides: [a] motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final. [7] If the defendant filed a direct appeal of his convictions, the time period under Rule 61(i)(1) begins to run when the direct appeal process is complete, which for this Court, is the date of the issuance of the mandate under Supreme Court Rule 19. [8] According to Supreme Court Rule 19, after a case is finally determined, the mandate and a certified copy of the opinion or order are issued to the trial court. [9] The mandate recites the proceedings in the trial court and in the Supreme Court, directs the affirmance, reversal or modification of the judgment or order in the trial court, and then directs the trial court to take proceedings in accord with the Supreme Court's opinion. [10] Therefore, the date that the Supreme Court decides its opinion or order and the date that the mandate issues to the trial court directing proceedings in conformity with that opinion or order are not necessarily the same date. [11] This Court affirmed on direct appeal Staats' convictions and sentences in an opinion decided June 29, 2006. [12] The mandate to the Superior Court directing the affirmance of Staats' convictions and sentences issued July 20, 2006. [13] Therefore, the judgment of Staats' convictions became final on July 20, 2006, and Staats had until July 20, 2007, one year after the judgment of conviction became final, to file any motions for post-conviction relief. Staats filed and served his motion for post-conviction relief with the Superior Court on July 12, 2007, eight days before the deadline of July 20, 2007. His motion was filed within the time limitation under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) and was not time-barred. Accordingly, the Superior Court was mistaken when it determined that Staats' motion for post-conviction relief was not filed within the proper time limitation. [14]