Court Opinion

ID: 9363846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 20:03:44.400403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.518375
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                            )
                                              )
       v.                                     )               Case ID No.: 1602004456A
                                              )
JONATHAN JOHNSON,                             )
                                              )
               Defendant.                     )

                                             ORDER

                               Submitted: December 28, 2022
                                 Decided: January 13, 2023

       AND NOW TO WIT, this 13th day of January 2023, upon various and

multiple filings, this Court again considers Defendant Jonathan Johnson

(“Defendant”)’s application for relief. This time, Defendant files a “Reply and

Objections to the State’s Respond [sic]/Answer to Defendant’s Motion for

Correction of Illegal Sentence and Motion for Reargument.”1 For all the reasons

previously and again stated, it appears to the Court that:

       1.      Defendant was charged with multiple offenses after law enforcement

1
  Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d) provides that “[i]n all cases not provided for by
rule or administrative order, the court shall regulate its practice in accordance with the applicable
Superior Court civil rule . . . .” Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d). Delaware Superior Court Civil
Rule 59 allows the filing of a motion for reargument if the motion is “served and filed within 5
days after the filing of the Court's opinion or decision.” Del. Super. Civ. R. 59. Defendant filed
this Motion 10 days after the filing of the Court’s decision; therefore, Defendant’s Motion is
untimely, and the Court has no jurisdiction over this Motion. See D.I. 164–65; State v. Brown,
2019 WL 3249402, at *2 (Del. Super. July 18, 2019) (“Under settled Delaware law, this Court has
no authority to extend the time in which to move for reargument. And because [the defendant]'s
reargument motion is untimely, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider it.”) (citations omitted).
                                                  1
executed a search warrant of his home and located firearms, ammunition, and drugs.2

       2.     On the day of trial, Defendant pled guilty to one count of Drug Dealing

and one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony

(“PFDCF”).3 Prior to sentencing, the State filed a Motion to Declare Defendant a

Habitual Offender and to be sentenced on the PFDCF charge under 11 Del. C. §

4214.4 On October 27, 2017, the Court granted the State’s motion,5 and sentenced

Defendant to the minimum mandatory twenty-five years for the firearm charge and

to probation for the Drug Dealing offense.6

       3.     In October 2018, Defendant filed his first Motion for Postconviction

Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.7 The Court denied the motion.8

Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Decision, 9 which

this Court dismissed as untimely.10

       4.     During the pendency of his Rule 61 Motion, Defendant filed a Petition

2
  On September 12, 2016, a Superior Court grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant
for the following charges: Drug Dealing (two counts), Aggravated Possession (two counts),
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (two counts), Carrying a Concealed
Deadly Weapon (one count), Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (two counts),
Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (two counts), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (four counts).
3
  See D.I. 39.
4
  D.I. 41; see 11 Del. C. § 4214.
5
  D.I. 42.
6
  D.I. 41, 43.
7
  D.I. 44.
8
  D.I. 109.
9
  D.I. 111.
10
   D.I. 116.
                                              2
for Writ of Mandamus,11 a Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing,12 and a Motion to

Stay the Consideration of his Rule 61 Motion.13 These requests were denied.14

Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Delaware Supreme

Court, also denied.15

       5.      In July of 2021, Defendant filed an “Affidavit of Fact: Notice of Fault

and Opportunity to Cure/Writ of Revocation of Plea Contract & Affidavit of

Facts.”16 He demanded “to have a scheduled special appearance and/or phone/video

conference” with the Court and a payment of $10 million. Defendant’s requests

were denied.

       6.      In February 2022, Defendant filed another Rule 61 Motion,17 and a

Motion for Appointment of Counsel.18 The claims were barred under Superior Court

Criminal Rules 61(i)(2)(i) and 61(i)(4),19 and this Court summarily dismissed

them.20

       7.      Within three months in 2022, Defendant filed over twenty requests, to

11
   D.I. 75.
12
   D.I. 78.
13
   D.I. 81.
14
   D.I. 94.
15
   See Matter of Johnson, 228 A.3d 139, 2020 WL 1881069 (Del. Apr. 15, 2020) (TABLE).
16
   D.I. 119.
17
   D.I. 131.
18
   D.I. 132.
19
   See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (“Any ground for relief that was formerly adjudicated,
whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a postconviction
proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, is thereafter barred.”).
20
   D.I. 134.
                                                3
have this Court vacate his sentence, set aside his plea agreement, hold a suppression

hearing, grant default judgment against the State, and order the State to pay him

$1,830,000.00.21 On November 18, 2022, this Court again determined Defendant’s

motions were procedurally barred and did not satisfy any pleadings requirements of

Superior Court Criminal Rules.22

       8.      In that November 2022 ruling, this Court requested that the Supreme

Court consider enjoining Defendant from future filings without leave of the Court.23

On January 5, 2023, the Supreme Court warned Defendant against non-meritorious

future filings after it dismissed his petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus

and granted the State’s Motion to Dismiss.24

21
  On August 31, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to File out of Time: (1) Motion for Reargument
of Suppress Denial, (2) Direct Appeal of Suppress Denial, (3) Motion of Withdrawal of Plea, (4)
Motion for Reargument of Conviction and Sentence, and (5) Direct Appeal of Conviction and
Sentence. D.I. 141. On September 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Correction of Illegal
Sentence. D.I. 153. On September 20, 2022, Defendant filed (1) Supplemental Demand Relief to
Motions to File Out of Time, (2) Supplemental Demand Relief to Motion for Correction of Illegal
sentence, (3) Motion for Withdrawal Plea, (4) Motion to File Out of Time to File a Motion to
Suppress, and (5) Motion to Suppress. D.I. 143. On September 29, 2022, Defendant filed
“summonses” to his attorneys, a Deputy Attorney General, and the State for two separate cases.
D.I. 155–59.

On October 4, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence, same as D.I. 153
that was filed on September 8, 2022. D.I. 154. On October 13, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of
Writ of Declaratory Judgment. On October 27, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Fault and
Opportunity to Cure Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence, Withdrawal Plea, and a Motion to
File Out of Time and Summons by November 1, 2022. D.I. 161. On November 7, 2022, Defendant
filed a Default Judgment. D.I. 162. On November 10, 2022, Defendant filed Affidavit of the
Amount Due $1,830,000.00. D.I. 163.
22
   D.I. 164.
23
   Id.
24
   In the Matter of the Petition of Jonathan Johnson for a Writ of Mandamus, 2023 WL 116481
(Del. Jan. 5, 2023) (“In the last three years, Johnson has filed three appeals and two writ petitions
                                                 4
       9.      On December 28, 2022, Defendant filed again, rehashing previously

raised demands.25 His application remains procedurally barred. His Motion for

Reargument is untimely.

       10.     Defendant’s requests are therefore SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

                                                            /s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                            Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                            Judge

oc:    Prothonotary
cc:    Defendant
       Allison Abessinio, Esquire
       Investigative Services Office

relating to his convictions in this Court. We warn Johnson that if he continues to file appeals or
writs making repetitive claims, he could be enjoined from filing future appeals or writs without
leave of the Court.”).
25
   D.I. 171, at 4. Defendant seeks an in-person or video “meeting of the minds,” and to have this
Court again vacate his sentence, withdraw his plea, release him on bond, hold a suppression
hearing, and provide stand-by counsel. Id.
                                                5