Court Opinion

ID: 9395282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 17:03:54.838191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:06.806707
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                             )
                                               )
             Plaintiff,                        )
                                               )
        v.                                     ) Cr. ID. No. 1910001001
                                               )
RONALD STOW,                                   )
                                               )
             Defendant.                        )

                              Submitted: May 1, 2023
                              Decided: May 17, 2023

                  On Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief
                                    DENIED

                 On Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
                                    DENIED

                                     ORDER

JOHNSTON, J.

      On July 6, 2021, Ronald Stow (“Defendant”) pled guilty to four counts of

Dealing in Child Pornography, and one count of Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual

Conduct Against a Child. Defendant was sentenced on October 1, 2021. On

August 12, 2022, Defendant requested transcripts of his sentencing hearing. The

Court granted Defendant’s request and sent the sentencing transcript to Defendant

on September 22, 2022. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Postconviction

Relief, together with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, on April 20, 2023.

                                         1
       “A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year

after the judgment of conviction is final . . . .”1 “A judgment of conviction is

final . . . [30 days after the Court imposes sentence] if the defendant does not file a

direct appeal.”2 Delaware Superior Court Rule 61(e)(3) states:

              The judge may appoint counsel for an indigent movant’s
              first timely postconviction motion and request for
              appointment of counsel if the motion seeks to set aside a
              judgment of conviction that resulted from a plea of guilty
              or nolo contendere only if the judge determines that: (i) the
              conviction has been affirmed by final order upon direct
              appellate review or direct appellate review is unavailable;
              (ii) the motion sets forth a substantial claim that the
              movant received ineffective assistance of counsel in
              relation to the plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (iii)
              granting the motion would result in vacatur of the
              judgment of conviction for which the movant is in
              custody; and (iv) specific exceptional circumstances
              warrant the appointment of counsel.

       The Court finds Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief untimely.

Thus, Rule 61(e)(3) also is not satisfied. While this is Defendant’s first post-

conviction motion, it is not timely. The Court imposed Defendant’s sentence on

October 1, 2021. The judgment of conviction became final on October 31, 2021.

Defendant did not file his motion for post-conviction relief until April 20, 2023—

nearly six months after the one-year deadline.3

1
  Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(i)(1).
2
  Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(m)(1).
3
  The Court sent Defendant his sentencing transcript on September 22, 2022. Defendant had
approximately one month after receiving his sentencing transcript to submit his Motion for Post-
Conviction Relief in a timely manner. One month is more than enough time to submit the
                                               2
       The Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief.

The Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 /s/ Mary M. Johnston
                                            The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

motion in a timely fashion. Instead, Defendant submitted his motions almost six months after
the one-year deadline.
                                               3