Opinion ID: 2361087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsequent Procedural History

Text: On Gattis' automatic direct appeal, this Court, sitting en Banc, affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. [7] Counsel for Gattis filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied October 3, 1994. On October 21, 1994, the Superior Court set a new execution date of December 2, 1994. On November 21, 1994, Gattis filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. On that same date, the Superior Court entered an order staying the scheduled execution and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended motion for postconviction relief. On February 8, 1995, Gattis filed an amended motion for postconviction relief. By initial decision dated August 24, 1995, the Superior Court denied Gattis' motions for postconviction relief. Gattis filed a timely motion to reargue, and the Superior Court conducted a Rule 61 hearing on October 20, 1995. By memorandum opinion dated December 28, 1995, the Superior Court decided that none of the facts adduced at the Rule 61 hearing had altered the conclusions reached in its initial decision of August 24, 1995, and denied Gattis' motions for postconviction relief. [8] The Superior Court rescheduled Gattis' execution for March 29, 1996. [9] Gattis appealed to this Court the denial of his motions for postconviction relief. In his appeal, he argued, inter alia, that, if given the opportunity, he could show that the State's theory of the case was impossible. He also argued that the State unconstitutionally struck a potential juror on the basis of his gender. This Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings on these two matters. On remand, the Superior Court again denied Gattis' motions. [10] This is Gattis' appeal of the Superior Court's decisions both before and after remand.