Court Opinion

ID: 9918838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 18:03:51.007092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:11.256018
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                  )
                                    )
                  Plaintiff,        )
                                    )
                                    )
      v.                            )     Cr. ID No. 79800001DI
                                    )
LAWRENCE B. DICKENS,                )
                                    )
                  Defendant.        )
                                    )

                      Submitted: December 21, 2023
                        Decided: January 11, 2024

 COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
  DEFENDANT’S RULE 61 MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION
      RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED
                       AND
    RELATED MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING,
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DISCOVERY AND TRANSCRIPTS
                 SHOULD BE DENIED
                       AND
   MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE SHOULD BE
                      DENIED

Abigail E. Rodgers, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of
Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

Lawrence B. Dickens, SBI No. 00124570, J.T.V.C.C. 1181 Paddock Road,
Smyrna, DE 19977, pro se.

PARKER, Commissioner
           This 11th day of January 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Rule

61 motion for postconviction relief and Rule 35(a) motion for correction of

illegal sentence, it appears to the Court as follows:

               BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

           On February 20, 1980, after a 10-day trial, a Superior Court jury

convicted Defendant Lawrence B. Dickens of Murder in the First Degree for

the killing of Myrtis Handy. Dickens was also convicted of Attempted

Murder in the First Degree for the shooting of Elmira Handy, First Degree

Assault for the shooting of a bystander, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon

during the Commission of a Felony.

           On the Murder in the First Degree conviction, Dickens was sentenced

to life imprisonment, without the possibility of probation or parole or any

other reduction.1 Dickens was sentenced to additional Level V time on the

remaining convictions.2

           Following Dickens’ convictions and sentences, he filed a direct appeal.

On November 3, 1981, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions

and sentences.3 Thereafter, Dickens filed three Rule 61 motions, all of which

1
    D.I. 14.
2
    D.I. 21.
3
    Dickens v. State, 437 A.2d 159 (Del. 1981).

                                              1
have been unsuccessful4. He has also filed an unsuccessful petition for federal

habeas corpus relief.5

                         DICKENS’ PENDING MOTIONS

         Dickens filed a Rule 61 motion, his fourth, seeking to vacate his

Murder-in-the-First Degree sentence and conviction. Dickens also filed a

Rule 35(a) motion for “correction of sentence.”

                                     RULE 61 MOTION

         Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) requires all second or

subsequent motions to be summarily dismissed unless the movant was

convicted after a trial and the movant (i) pleads with particularity that new

evidence exists to establish the movant’s actual innocence in fact; or (ii)

pleads with particularity that a new, retroactively applicable constitutional

rule applies to the movant’s case and renders a conviction invalid.

4
 First Rule 61 notion: State v. Dickens, 602 A.2d 95 (Del.Super. 1989), aff’d, 1990 WL
43318 (Del. 1990).

Second Rule 61 motion: State v. Dickens, 1994 WL 145988 (Del.Super.), aff’d, 1994 WL
466126 (Del.).

Third Rule 61 motion: Dickens v. State, 2003 WL 1922507 (Del.).
5
    Dickens v. Deloy, et al., 2007 WL 4292115 (D.Del.).

                                             2
        Dickens contends that he has satisfied the pleading requirements of

Rule 61(d)(2)(ii). Dickens claims that pending legislation, Delaware House

Bill 70, 152nd General Assembly, 2023-2024, seeks to repeal 11 Del. C.

§4209, and when repealed, his sentence on his Murder-in-the-First-Degree

conviction would be invalid and therefore his conviction would need to be

vacated.

        11 Del. C. §4209 provides that persons convicted of first-degree

murder shall be sentenced to death or by imprisonment for the remainder of

the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other

reduction.

        Dickens is incorrect in his understanding of the pending legislation.

The pending legislation does not seek to repeal 11 Del. C. §4209 in its

entirety. It seeks to eliminate the death penalty as a possible sentence for first-

degree murder convictions. If the pending legislation is enacted and becomes

law, every person convicted of first-degree murder shall be sentenced to

“imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life without benefit

of probation or parole or any other reduction.”6

        The pending legislation, if signed into law, would have no effect on

Dickens’ first-degree murder sentence. Dickens was already sentenced to life

6
    House Bill 70 , 152nd General Assembly, 2023-2024.

                                        3
imprisonment without the benefit of probation or parole or any other reduction

on his first-degree murder conviction. Dickens’ sentence would remain the

same as previously imposed under the pending legislation, if passed and

signed into law.

      Dickens’ Rule 61 motion should be summarily dismissed since he

cannot meet the threshold requirement of proceeding with this motion.

Dickens has failed to plead with particularity that a new, retroactively

applicable constitutional rule applied to his case and rendered his conviction

invalid.

                     RELATED MOTIONS ARE DENIED

      In accordance with the mandates of Rule 61, Dickens’ Rule 61 motion

should be summarily dismissed as he failed to meet the pleading requirements

for proceeding with the motion.        As such, Dickens’ request for the

appointment of counsel, evidentiary hearing, discovery and transcripts are

likewise denied.

            MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE

      Dickens contends that his sentence on his first-degree murder

conviction to life imprisonment “without the benefit of probation or parole or

any other reduction” is illegal. He filed the subject Rule 35(a) seeking to

correct this allegedly illegal sentence. Dickens seeks a modification of his

                                      4
sentence to remove the portion of his sentence that does not allow probation,

parole or any other reduction to his life sentence.

         11 Del. C. §4209(a) provides that persons convicted of first-degree

murder shall be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for the remainder of

the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other

reduction.

         Dickens was sentenced on his first-degree murder conviction to

imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without benefit of probation

or parole or any other reduction.

         There is no basis for a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence

when the sentence imposed is allowed by statute.7 Dickens’ sentence on his

first-degree murder conviction to life imprisonment without the benefit of

probation or parole or any other reduction was not only allowed to be imposed

by statute, it was required to be imposed. Dickens’ motion for correction of

illegal sentence is denied.

7
    See, Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297 (Del. 1989).

                                             5
      For the reasons discussed above, Dickens’ Rule 61 motion for

postconviction relief should be summarily dismissed, the related relief

requested should be denied, and his Rule 35(a) for correction of illegal

sentence should be denied.

      IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

                                    Lynne. M. Parker
                                    Commissioner Lynne M. Parker
cc:   Prothonotary

                                   6