State v. Owusu

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. )
) I.D. No. 1112020007
PATRICK OWUSU, )
Defendant. )
Date Submitted: August 31, 2018
Date Decided: September 20, 2018
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief
DENIED AS MOOT
ORDER
This 20th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of the Motion for
Postconviction Relief filed by Defendant, Patrick Owusu, the Court is divested of its
jurisdiction to consider the pending motion and finds as follows:
1. By its express terms, the Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rules
provides that relief pursuant to Rule 61 is only available to a defendant “in custody
under a sentence of this court[.]”1 The Delaware Supreme Court has explained that
a person loses standing to move for postconviction relief under Rule 61 where the
defendant is not in custody or subject to future custody for the underlying offense or
challenged sentence.2 The Superior Court has consistently applied this standard in
summarily dismissing postconviction motions.
1
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1).
2
Pumphrey v. State, 2007 WL 3087405, at *1 (Del. 2007).
2. Defendant’s sentence, which was imposed after a violation-of-
probation hearing was held on August 10, 2012, had a final expiration date of August
10, 2017. Defendant argues that he is entitled to relief because he is detained for
purposes of deportation as a result of his sentence in this case. Where a defendant
understands that deportation may follow as a potential result to pleading guilty to
criminal charges, this is merely a “collateral, and not a direct, consequence” of the
defendant’s sentence.3 During the initial plea colloquy, Defendant acknowledged
his understanding of the deportation risks associated with pleading guilty to a
felony.4 In addition, Defendant signed a truth-in-sentencing form acknowledging
that conviction of a criminal offense may result in deportation. Despite Defendant’s
contentions, his current detainment for purposes of deportation is entirely separate
from the sentence imposed and he is no longer in custody under a sentence of this
Court. Therefore, the Court is divested of jurisdiction and the pending Motion for
Postconviction Relief is moot.
3. Pursuant to Rule 61(d)(5), “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion for
postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant
3
See State v. Ruiz, 2007 WL 4577586, at *4 (Del. Super. 2007), aff’d 956 A.2d
643 (Del. 2008). “A collateral consequence ‘is one that is not related to the length
or nature of the sentence imposed on the basis of the plea.’” Id. at *3.
4
State v. Owusu, I.D. No. 1112020007, at 20-23 (Del. Super. June 26, 2012)
(Herlihy, J.) (TRANSCRIPT).
2
is not entitled to relief, the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal.”5
Even if Defendant’s postconviction motion qualified for review on the merits,
summary dismissal would be appropriate for the following two reasons:
(i) First, Defendant’s motion does not satisfy the procedural requirements
of Rule 61(i) and is therefore time-barred. Rule 61(i)(1) requires a
motion for postconviction relief be filed within one year after the
judgment of conviction is final.6 Defendant was sentenced on August
10, 2012, and did not file a direct appeal. As a result, Defendant’s
conviction became final on September 10, 2012. Defendant filed this
motion on August 31, 2018, almost six years after his conviction
became final. To avoid the procedural time bar of Rule 61(i)(1),
Defendant must satisfy the requirements of Rule 61(i)(5), which
provides that procedural bars “shall not apply either to a claim that the
court lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that satisfies the pleading
requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of this
rule.” 7 Defendant’s motion does not claim that the court lacked
jurisdiction nor does it “plead with particularity that new evidence
5
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).
6
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
7
Id.
3
exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually
innocent” or “plead with particularity a claim that a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive . . . [and] appli[cable] to the
movant’s case and renders the conviction . . . invalid.”8 Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion does not satisfy the procedural requirements of
Rule 61(i)(1) and, therefore, his motion is time-barred.
(ii) Second, Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails for
the reasons previously set forth by this Court in its Order Denying
Patrick Owusu’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.9
NOW, THEREFORE, on this 20th day of September, 2018, Defendant’s
Motion for Postconviction Relief is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
______________________________________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
8
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i), (ii).
9
State v. Owusu, I.D. No. 1112020007, at 4-5 (Del. Super. January 29, 2015)
(ORDER).
4