State v. Biggins ( 2022 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
CRAIG A. KARSNITZ 1 The Circle, Suite 2
RESIDENT JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
May 19, 2022
James A. Biggins
SBI #319264
Unit W
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977
Re: State of Delaware v. James A. Biggins
Def. ID No. 9609015504
Motion for Postconviction Relief
Consolidated Motion for Discovery
Dear Mr. Biggins:
On April 6, 2021, you filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court from
an order of this Court which denied your motion to compel the production of a search
warrant and other documents in this case. You sought the documents to support an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a future motion for postconviction relief
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. This Court held that you were prohibited
from filing any matter without first obtaining written approval based on your history
of filing numerous, meritless pleadings. The Delaware Supreme Court had
1
previously prohibited you from filing any further papers challenging your
convictions in this case without a Justice's prior approval.1
On April 7, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice directing you
to show cause why your appeal should not be dismissed based on its lack of
jurisdiction under the Delaware Constitution to hear an interlocutory appeal in a
criminal matter.2 You responded to the notice, and on May 6, 2021, the Delaware
Supreme Court held that, until you filed a motion for postconviction relief and this
Court ruled on that motion, this Court’s denial of your motion to compel was an
interlocutory order not subject to review by the Delaware Supreme Court.3 Your
appeal was dismissed.
On May 11, 2022, you filed your Motion for Postconviction Relief and
Consolidated Motion for Discovery (collectively, the “Rule 61 Motion”). Before
addressing the merits of the Rule 61 Motion, I first examine the procedural bars of
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i).4 If a procedural bar exists, as a general rule I
will not address the merits of the postconviction claim.5 This is not your first Rule
1 Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214, at *1 (Del. July 11, 2011).
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
3 Biggins v. State, 252 A.3d 433 (Table) (Del. May 6, 2021, rehearing denied May 21, 2021).
4 Ayers v. State, 802 A.2d 278, 281 (Del.2002) (citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del.
1990)).
5 Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748 (Del. 2016); State v. Page, 2009 WL 1141738, at*13 (Del.
Super. April 28, 2009).
2
61 Motion. Under the Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, second
or subsequent motions for postconviction relief are not permitted unless, in your Rule
61 Motion, you plead with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference of
your actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to
your case and renders your convictions invalid.6 You plead neither of these in your
Rule 61 Motion. Your Rule 61 Motion is procedurally barred.
Given that this Rule 61 Motion is procedurally barred, summary dismissal is
appropriate. 7 For the reasons set forth above, I find that the Motion for
Postconviction Relief must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz
cc: Prothonotary
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).
3