Court Opinion

ID: 9407899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 18:04:57.356973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.653637
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: May 15, 2023
                                 Decided: July 10, 2023

       AND NOW TO WIT, this 10th day of July 2023, upon multiple filings, this

Court again considers Defendant Jonathan Johnson (“Defendant”)’s application for

relief as “Pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) and Notice to Show Cause.”1

       1.     Defendant was charged with multiple offenses after law enforcement

executed a search warrant of his home and located firearms, ammunition, heroin,

cocaine, and marijuana. 2 On the day of trial on April 25, 2017, 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

1
  D.I. 176.
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). D.I. 2.
3
  See D.I. 39.
      2.     The State filed a Motion to Declare Defendant a Habitual Offender 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.     On October 17, 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.     Between October 2019 and January 2020, Defendant has filed

numerous petitions including a Petition 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 on August 14, 2020.14 During the pendency

of his Rule 61 Motion, Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with

the Delaware Supreme Court; denied on April 15, 2020.15

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.
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).
                                            2
       5.      Undeterred, 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.      On February 3, 2022, Defendant filed another Rule 61 Motion 17 and a

Motion for Appointment of Counsel.18 On March 22, 2022, this Court found the

claims barred under Superior Court Criminal Rules 61(i)(2)(i) and 61(i)(4) 19 and

summarily dismissed that motion.20

       7.      From August to November 2022, Defendant filed twenty-plus new

requests, 21 with the last petition asking that this Court vacate his sentence, withdraw

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.
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
                                                3
or set aside his plea agreement, hold a suppression hearing, grant his default

judgment motion against the State, and grant to him a payment of $1,830,000.00.22

Those claims were summarily dismissed and this Court requested that Supreme

Court enjoin Defendant from filing future appeals without leave of the Court.23 The

Supreme Court did so. 24

       8.      Once again, Defendant now files his third Rule 61 Motion, a request for

Appointment of Counsel, and a petition for evidentiary hearing.25 Not only are his

claims incoherent and baseless, they are barred under Superior Court Criminal Rules

61(i)(2)(i) and 61(i)(4). 26 Under Rules 61(i)(2)(i), the Court will not consider a

second or subsequent Rule 61 motion unless Defendant makes a claim that (1) new

evidence exists that creates a strong inference of his actual innocence or (2) a new

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
   In that motion, he claimed excusable neglect, ineffective assistance, prejudice, and that the State
failed to respond to his claims; all meritless. D.I. 163.
23
   State v. Johnson, 2022 WL 17076222, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 18, 2022), reargument dismissed,
2023 WL 195622 (Del. Super. Jan. 13, 2023), aff’d, 294 A.3d 1080 (Del. 2023).
24
   See Matter of Johnson, 289 A.3d 630, 2023 WL 116481, at *2 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023) (TABLE)
(“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. 176; D.I. 177; D.I. 178.
26
   Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2)(i) (“(No second or subsequent motion is permitted under this
Rule unless that second or subsequent motion satisfies the pleading requirements of subparagraphs
(2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of this rule.”); 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.”).
                                                  4
rule of constitutional law made his sentence invalid.27

          9.      Defendant’s protestations are unclear. He argues ineffective assistance

of counsel related to the arresting and seizing officer’s failure to appear at a

suppression hearing as “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 61(i)(5), yet

references vague ramblings related to purported violations under the 6th Amendment,

Brady, Jenks, and Superior Court Criminal Rule 11. 28

          10.     Defendant does not claim “new evidence” exists that creates a strong

inference of his actual innocence. And his concession that he found this “new

evidence” in his discovery package confirms what is obvious: the evidence is not

new. Defendant does not raise a claim that a new rule of constitutional law made

his conviction illegal. Further, all his other repetitive claims are barred under Rule

61(i)(4).

          Therefore, Defendant’s Motions are SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

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

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

27
     Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2)(i); Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i)–(ii).
28
     See generally D.I. 176, at 1–5.
                                                    5