Court Opinion

ID: 9451111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:06:46.79746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:33.196939
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                         )
                                           )
       v.                                  )         ID No. 1003021785
                                           )
RASHID ROY,                                )
                                           )
       Defendant.                          )

                                      ORDER

       This 4th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Rashid Roy’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Motion”),1 it appears

to the Court that:

       1. On April 7, 2011, Defendant was found guilty after a trial by jury and

convicted of Murder First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the

Commission of a Felony, Assault Third Degree, and Terroristic Threatening.2

       2. On September 9, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to Level V for the balance

of his natural life, plus 11 years, followed by decreasing levels of probation.3

       3. Defendant’s Motion is a third motion for postconviction relief pursuant to

Delaware Superior Court Rule 61 (“Rule 61”). Defendant filed his second Rule 61

motion on March 9, 2016, which was summarily dismissed.4

1
  D.I. 157.
2
  D.I. 79.
3
  D.I. 88.
4
  D.I. 150.
         4. Rule 61(d) explicitly bars successive motions and states that no second or

subsequent postconviction motion is permitted unless the movant was convicted

after a trial and the motion either:

         (i)     pleads with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong
                 inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts
                 underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or

         (ii)    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 or death sentence invalid.

         5. Defendant asserts three grounds for relief, none of which assert actual

innocence on the basis of new evidence or new retroactively applicable law.

Therefore, Defendant's claims are procedurally barred.5

         For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 ____________________ _________
                                                    Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary
cc: Rashid Roy (SBI #00302387)

5
    Super. Ct. Crim. R.61(d)(2).
                                             2