State v. Joyner

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 1906006276
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1906006276 ) DEMETRIUS JOYNER, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Date Submitted: January 30, 2023 Date Decided: March 21, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief

(“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, statutory and decisional law, and the

record, IT APPEARS THAT:

(1) On August 4, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to Rape Third Degree.2 By

Order dated January 8, 2021, effective June 12, 2019, he was sentenced to 20 years

at Level V, suspended after 7 years for 13 years at Level IV DOC discretion,

suspended after 1 year for 2 years at Level III.3

(2) Defendant did not file a direct appeal. On April 12, 2021, he filed a

Motion for Modification of Sentence,4 which was denied.5 Defendant filed the

1 D.I. 31. 2 D.I. 22. 3 D.I. 24. The first 2 years of Defendant’s sentence are a mandatory term of incarceration. See 11 Del. C. § 771; 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2). 4 D.I. 25. 5 D.I. 26. instant Motion on January 30, 2023.6 The Motion does not set forth any legal

grounds for relief; instead, Defendant cites caretaking responsibilities, COVID-19,

health issues, and his family’s homelessness as his basis for seeking postconviction

relief.7

(3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 governs motions for postconviction

relief.8 Rule 61(a) requires that a postconviction motion be based on a sufficient

factual and legal basis.9 If it plainly appears from the motion that the movant is not

entitled to relief, the judge may summarily dismiss it.10 Because the instant Motion

fails to provide a sufficient factual and legal basis for postconviction relief, it plainly

appears that Defendant is not entitled to relief, and therefore the Court may enter an

Order for its summary dismissal.11

(4) Assuming arguendo that the Motion was meant to be construed as a

motion for modification of sentence, it would be procedurally barred. Under Rule

35(b), there is an absolute bar against repetitive requests for reduction of sentence,12

and Defendant has previously filed a motion for modification of sentence.13

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s

6 D.I. 31. 7 Id. 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. 9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a). 10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5). 11 Id. 12 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). 13 D.I. 25. 2 Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Diana A. Dunn, DAG Demetrius Joyner (SBI #00264375)