Court Opinion

ID: 9384096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 19:03:06.639067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.690875
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                     )
                                      )
            v.                        )     I.D. Nos. 2006004121
                                      )               2003011608
BRIAN L. COVERDALE,                   )
                                      )
            Defendant.                )

                            Submitted: March 24, 2023
                            Decided: March 31, 2023

                 Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief
                          SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

                         Motion for Appointment of Counsel
                                     DENIED.

                                     ORDER

Brian L. Coverdale, pro se, Smyrna, DE.

Barzillai K. Axelrod, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, 820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of
Delaware.

WHARTON, J.
      This 31st day of March, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Brian L.

Coverdale’s untimely first Motion for Post-conviction Relief, and his Motion for

Appointment of Counsel, and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

      1.     On July 15, 2021, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale (“Coverdale”) pled

guilty to charges from two separate cases - Manslaughter, Driving Under the Influence

of Drugs, and Speeding from one case,1 and Possession of a Firearm During the

Commission of a Felony from the other.2 On October 29, 2021, the Court imposed

an aggregate unsuspended Level V sentence of 12 years followed by decreasing levels

of supervision as well as fines for the Title 21 offenses.3 Coverdale sought a sentence

modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, which the Court denied on

January 7, 2022.4 He did not appeal either his sentence or the denial of his sentence

modification motion to the Delaware Supreme Court. He next filed this Motion for

Postconviction Relief (“Motion”) on March 24, 2023,5 along with a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel.6 Thus, the Motion for Postconviction Relief is an untimely

first postconviction relief motion.7

1
  D.I. 15 (ID No. 2006004121).
2
  D.I. 11. (ID No. 2003011608).
3
  D.I. 19 (ID No. 2006004121) (All succeeding references are to ID NO.
2006004121).
4
  D.I. 20, 21.
5
  D.I. 22.
6
  D.I. 23.
7
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
                                          2
      2.     The Motion alleges a single claim for relief of ineffective assistance of

counsel.8 Specifically, Coverdale alleges his counsel was ineffective for: (1) “failing

to investigate relevant issues of intent that would have and did influence decision to

plead guilty;” (2) providing “faulty legal advice that lead [sic] to pleading guilty to

PFDCF in an unrelated case;” (3) entering faulty and prejudicial stipulation with

prosecution that lead [sic] to higher minimum mandatory sentence as opposed to the

alleged drug dealing;” and (4) “failure to timely file motion to modify sentence and

make aware of other postconviction options after advising that he would make me

aware.”9

      3.     Before addressing the merits of a defendant’s motion for postconviction

relief, the Court must first apply the procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule

61(i).10 If a procedural bar exists, then the Court will not consider the merits of the

postconviction claim.11

      4.   Under Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion

for post-conviction relief can be barred for time limitations, successive motions,

procedural defaults, and former adjudications. A motion exceeds time limitations if

it is filed more than one year after the conviction becomes final or if it asserts a

newly recognized, retroactively applied right more than one year after it was first

8
  D.I. 22.
9
  Id.
10
   Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
11
   Id.
                                          3
recognized.12 A second or subsequent motion is considered successive and therefore

barred unless the movant was convicted after a trial and “pleads with particularity

that new evidence exists that the movant is actually innocent” or “pleads with

particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases

on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme

Court, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction … invalid.”13

Grounds for relief “not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of

conviction” are barred as procedurally defaulted unless the movant can show “cause

for relief” and “prejudice from [the] violation.”14 Grounds for relief formerly

adjudicated in the case, including “proceedings leading to the judgment of

conviction, in an appeal, in a post-conviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas

corpus hearing” are barred.15 These bars to relief are inapplicable to either a claim

that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that pleads with particularity that new

evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent

in fact, or that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactively applicable, applies

to the movant’s case and renders the conviction invalid.16

      5.    Summary dismissal is appropriate if it plainly appears from the motion

for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the

12
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
13
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
14
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).
15
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
16
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
                                           4
movant is not entitled to relief.17 Here, after careful review of the Motion and the

record in the case, it is plainly apparent that Coverdale is not entitled to relief and

summary dismissal is appropriate.

       6.     The Motion is time-barred. The Court sentenced Coverdale on October

29, 2021.18 Thus, his conviction became final on that date. This Motion was filed

on March 24, 2023, nearly 5 months too late.19 He does not allege that the Court

lacked jurisdiction, nor that the bar to relief of Rule 61(i)(1) is made inapplicable by

Rule 61(i)(5). The Motion simply alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Because

this Motion is untimely, and Coverdale has failed to overcome the time bar of Rule

61(i)(1), his Motion is barred.

       THEREFORE, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale’s Motion for Postconviction

Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. His Motion for Appointment of Counsel is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                            /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                                             Ferris W. Wharton, J.

oc:    Prothonotary
cc:    Investigative Services

17
   Id.
18
   D.I. 19.
19
   D.I. 24.
                                           5