State v. Meades

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedAugust 26, 2019
Docket1101020478
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Meades (State v. Meades) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Meades, (Del. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

E. SCOTT BRADLEY 1 The Circle, Suite 2 JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

TELEPHONE (302) 856-5256

August 26, 2019

Robert R. Meades

SBI# 00124648

James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, DE 19977

Re: Def. ID# 1101020478 Motion for Postconviction Relief - R3

LA d 92 ONY bd ALHAGS X3SSNs AUMVLONOHLOYNd A314

Dear Mr. Meades:

This is my decision on your third motion for postconviction relief. Your motion seeks for the Court to vacate your guilty plea and sentence on the grounds that the Court never held a competency hearing to determine whether you were capable of knowingly and intelligently entering such a plea. You allege that you were incompetent “at all relevant times” as evidenced by your treatment and stay

at the Delaware Psychiatric Center.

When faced with a claim for postconviction relief I must first determine whether any procedural bars prevent a consideration on the merits of any

underlying arguments.’ Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, governing

' Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). postconviction relief, states that all such motions beyond the first must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and either (1) pleads that new evidence exists showing that the movant is actually innocent in fact, or (2) pleads that a new, retroactive constitutional rule applies to the

movant’s case thereby rendering the conviction invalid.

You were not convicted after a trial. You plead guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony on January 4, 2012. Accordingly, the procedural bars of Rule 61 require that your motion be summarily dismissed. I am therefore

barred from considering your third motion for postconviction relief on the merits. CONCLUSION

Your third motion for postconviction relief is SUMMARILY

DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

A ‘Lag E. Scott Bradley

ESB:tll cc: Prothonotary’s Office

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Younger v. State
580 A.2d 552 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Meades, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meades-delsuperct-2019.