State v. LaCombe

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) Cr. ID. No. 1201018188
)
)
CLAUDE LACOMBE, )
)
Defendant. )
Submitted: May 21, 2024
Decided: August 29, 2024
COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED
AND
MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE
SHOULD BE DENIED
Jillian L. Schroeder, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Claude LaCombe, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.
SALOMONE, Commissioner
On May 10, 2024, Defendant Claude LaCombe (“LaCombe” or the
“Defendant”) filed his Fourth Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Fourth Rule 61
Motion”) and a Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence.1 At core, through these
two motions, LaCombe continues to contend that the sentence he received for his
2013 conviction for Murder in the Second Degree is improper. His arguments have
varied over the years, but the crux of his complaint is that he entered into a plea
agreement that contemplated his receiving 22 years for his conviction but did not
receive the benefit of that bargain. Rather, the Court sentenced him to life in prison.
While the Defendant is understandably unhappy with his life sentence, the issue
regarding the legality of that sentence was addressed by this Court and affirmed on
appeal many years ago. For the reasons set forth herein, his Fourth Rule 61 Motion
should be summarily dismissed, and Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence
should be denied.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 30, 2012, LaCombe was indicted on two counts of Murder in the
First Degree, four counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, two
counts of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and one count of Conspiracy in
1
Though styled differently, this is the fifth motion to modify and/or correct the Defendant’s
sentence that he has filed since 2013. See State v. Claude LaCombe, No. 1201018188, at 48, 55,
103, 111, 139 (Del. Super. Ct.) (hereinafter D.I.).
1
the Second Degree.2 The charges arose out of a planned robbery of two drug dealers
that occurred on December 26, 2011 in which LaCombe participated with three other
individuals and during which the two drug dealers were killed.
On April 11, 2013, LaCombe pleaded guilty to one count each of Murder in
the Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony,
Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.3 On
September 17, 2013, LaCombe was sentenced to life in prison for Murder in the
Second Degree, plus additional time for the remainder of the charges.4 On October
7, 2013, LaCombe filed a pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence, which the
Court denied on October 30, 2013 finding the sentenced imposed to be appropriate.5
On October 15, 2013, LaCombe filed a direct appeal of his sentence to the
Delaware Supreme Court.6 While that appeal was pending, LaCombe filed a second
Motion for Modification of Sentence on December 6, 2013, which the Court also
denied.7 On May 30, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s sentence,
noting that “[t]he trial court has broad discretion to impose any sentence that does
not exceed the statutory limits set by the General Assembly” and finding that the
Defendant’s life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment stating that “[t]here
2
D.I. 1.
3
D.I. 33.
4
D.I. 47.
5
D.I. 48, 50.
6
D.I. 49.
7
D.I. 55, 72.
2
is nothing extreme, or grossly disproportionate, about sentencing a murderer to life
in prison.”8
LACOMBE’S FIRST RULE 61 MOTION
Immediately prior to the Supreme Court rendering its decision, on May 29,
2014, LaCombe filed his first pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief.9
Postconviction counsel was appointed and filed an Amended Motion for
Postconviction Relief on December 3, 2015 (the “First Rule 61 Motion”).10 In his
First Rule 61 Motion, LaCombe raised a total of three claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. First, with respect to trial counsel, LaCombe asserted that his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (i) present mitigating evidence at the
sentencing hearing and (ii) require the State to honor its plea agreement.11 Second,
LaCombe claimed that the State breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair
8
LaCombe v. State, 93 A.3d 654 at *2 (Del. 2014). In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court
applied the two-part test set forth in Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894 (Del. 2003), for determining
whether LaCombe’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. Under Crosby, the Court must (i)
compare the crime committed to the sentence imposed and (ii) if the comparison leads to an
inference of gross disproportionality, then the Court must compare the defendant’s sentence to
similar cases to ascertain whether the trial court strayed from sentencing norms. Crosby v. State,
824 A.2d at 908. The Crosby Court noted that this exacting standard can only be met in rare cases.
Id. In LaCombe’s case, the State had recommended a sentence of 22 years, but the Court imposed
upon the Defendant the same life sentence given to his brother, who was the shooter and pled
guilty, but mentally ill, to Murder in the First Degree. In imposing the life sentence, the sentencing
judge noted that the Defendant was “a significant factor in the planning and determination of the
events that transpired” and that his role was “fairly equal in different respects to that of [his]
brother.” LaCombe v. State, 93 A.3d 654, slip. op. at *1.
9
D.I. 68.
10
D.I. 84-85.
11
2016 WL 6301233, slip. op. at *2
3
dealing at the sentencing hearing by tacitly arguing for a sentence of greater than 22
years.12 And finally, with respect to appellate counsel, LaCombe claimed he was
ineffective in his direct appeal by failing to effectively argue the trial court abused
its discretion when it sentenced him to life in prison.13 On October 25, 2016, the
Superior Court found each of these claims to be without merit and summarily
dismissed the First Rule 61 Motion.14 The Defendant filed a direct appeal to the
Delaware Supreme Court of the denial of the First Rule 61 Motion on November 9,
2016.15 The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal by the Superior Court on May
17, 2017.16
LACOMBE’S SECOND RULE 61 MOTION
On June 19, 2017, LaCombe filed a second pro se Motion for Postconviction
Relief asserting eighth grounds for relief, which included claims related to (i)
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, (ii) prosecutorial misconduct, (iii)
violations of the Delaware Rules of Evidence, (iv) a defective arrest warrant and (v)
actual innocence (the “Second Rule 61 Motion”).17 Less than a month later, on July
12
Id.13
Id.14
D.I. 95; 2016 WL 6301233, slip. op. at 2
15
D.I. 96.
16
D.I. 99. LaCombe v. State, 163 A.3d 708 (Del. May 17, 2017) (TABLE) (finding, inter alia, that
any deficiency of counsel did not result in prejudice under Strickland because the sentencing judge
was not bound by the State’s recommendation – a fact which was acknowledged by the Defendant
during his plea colloquy).
17
D.I. 100.
4
11, 2017, the Defendant filed a third pro se Motion for Sentence Modification, which
the Superior Court swiftly denied for being repetitive.18 Then, on December 21,
2017, the Superior Court found each of LaCombe’s claims set forth in his Second
Rule 61 Motion to be procedurally barred and summarily dismissed his motion.19
LaCombe appealed the dismissal of his Second Rule 61 Motion on January 18,
2018.20 The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on April 5, 2018.21 Undeterred,
the Defendant filed a fourth pro se Motion for Review of Sentence on February 11,
2020, which the trial court dismissed on July 29, 2020.22
LACOMBE’S THIRD RULE 61 MOTION
On September 27, 2021, LaCombe filed a third pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief and a Memorandum of Law in support thereof (the “Third
Rule 61 Motion”) pursuant to which he asserted his actual innocence of the crimes
for which he was convicted based upon an alleged recantation of statements made
to police by one of his co-defendants.23 LaCombe argued that he had a right to relief
based on this “new evidence” under the Supreme Court’s decision in Purnell v.
18
D.I. 103-104.
19
D.I. 106; see State v. LaCombe, 2017 WL 6550430.
20
D.I. 107.
21
D.I. 110; see State v. LaCombe, 184 A.3d 342 (TABLE), 2018 WL 1678765.
22
D.I. 111-113.
23
D.I. 114-115; 124-127. Contemporaneously with his Third Rule 61 Motion, LaCombe filed a
Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. D.I. 115, 118-119. Shortly thereafter, LaCombe filed a Motion
to Compel the production of certain transcripts. D.I. 121-122.
5
State.24 On May 13, 2022, the Superior Court found LaCombe’s Third Rule 61
Motion to be procedurally barred and held that it failed to set forth a cognizable
claim of legal innocence.25 LaCombe appealed the decision on June 14, 2022.26 On
September 8, 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court
summarily dismissing LaCombe’s Third Rule 61 Motion.27
LACOMBE’S FOURTH RULE 61 MOTION AND
MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE
On May 10, 2024, LaCombe filed his Fourth Rule 61 Motion along with a
Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence.28 In his Fourth Rule 61 Motion,
LaCombe seeks to withdraw his guilty plea29 based on the Delaware Supreme
Court’s holdings in Hernandez-Martinez v. State30 and Jones v. State.31 LaCombe
24
254 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2021).
25
D.I. 129. In reaching its decision, the Superior Court distinguished the Defendant’s case from
Purnell noting that (i) Purnell was convicted after trial and thus not barred by Rule 61(d)(2)
whereas LaCombe plead guilty and (ii) the State’s case did not depend on the statements made to
the police by LaCombe’s co-defendant. The Court also denied LaCombe’s Request for an
Evidentiary Hearing and the Motion to Compel production of certain transcripts which he filed in
connection with his Third Rule 61 Motion. D.I. 128-129.
26
D.I. 130.
27
LaCombe v. State, 284 A.3d 380 (Del. Sept. 8, 2022) (TABLE).
28
D.I. 138-139. On March 28, 2024, prior to filing his Fourth Rule 61 Motion, LaCombe filed a
pro se Motion to Compel certain discovery, which the Court denied on August 26, 2024, noting
that the requested documents are not in the possession of the Prothonotary or the Court. See D.I.
137, 143.
29
LaCombe also asks the Court to “pull relevant discovery pertaining to the issues raised” in his
Fourth Rule 61 Motion.
30
308 A.3d 1192 (Del. Nov. 29, 2023) (TABLE).
31
276 A.3d 1053 (Del. Apr. 18, 2022) (TABLE) (affirming trial court’s decision denying
defendant’s request to withdraw a no contest plea to two counts of fourth degree rape and finding
6
contends he tried to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, like Mr. Hernandez-
Martinez, although the record does not reflect his current position.32 And, citing
Jones, claims that he had a “basis to assert legal innocence” because his case was an
“accomplice liability” case where an “individualized determination of the
defendant’s mental state and culpability for any aggravating fact or circumstance”
must be made.33 He further states as follows:
this could only be made thru [sic] counsel’s presentation
at sentencing, which counsel performed ineffectively, by
giving minimal case for plea of 22 years, and relying on
State to uphold bargain to only recommend 22 years, when
the State presented an arguement [sic] of increased
sentencing, by infering [sic] a higher culpability and
knowing mental state that was false.34
Similarly, in his Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence, LaCombe
argues that his sentence is illegal under an accomplice liability theory and that factors
concerning his “culpable mental state” and “accountability” were not considered by
the trial judge in determining his sentence to life in prison in violation of 11 Del. C.
§274 and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. State.35 Because the
that certain written statements made by defense counsel prior to the defendant entering his guilty
plea did not render the defendant’s plea not knowing, intelligent and voluntary).
32
D.I. 41-43, 45; see also D.I. 53 (Sentencing Hearing Transcript, dated September 17, 2013) at
*4 (where counsel states, “I have no indication that he is wanting to withdraw his plea or
complaining about it at this point.”) and *12 (Defendant states his desire to move forward with
sentencing to the judge).
33
D.I. 138 (quotations in original).
34
Id.
35
D.I. 139. In Allen, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the defendant's convictions due to the
trial court’s failure to instruct the jury in accordance with 11 Del. C. §274. Section 274 requires
7
two motions are inextricably linked by virtue of the nature of the substantive
allegations, the Court will analyze and decide both motions in tandem.
However, prior to considering the substantive issues set forth in the Fourth
Rule 61 Motion, the Court “must first consider the procedural requirements of Rule
61.”36
APPLICABLE LAW FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF
Rule 61 and Procedural Bars to Relief
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”) governs the procedures by
which an incarcerated individual may seek to have his conviction set aside on the
ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or any other ground that is a sufficient
factual and legal basis for a collateral attack upon the conviction.37 That is, it is a
means by which the court may correct Constitutional infirmities in a conviction or
sentence.38 “Rule 61 is intended to correct errors in the trial process, not allow
defendants unlimited opportunities to relitigate their convictions.”39
that when two or more persons are criminally liable for an offense which is divided into degrees
an individualized determination of a defendant's own culpable mental state and own accountability
for aggravating factors (i.e. such as the use of a gun) be made. The Court held that such a Section
274 jury instruction was mandatory for charges such as Robbery in the First Degree, overruling
previous inconsistent decisions. The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court providing
guidance on proper jury instructions. 970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009).
36
Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748, 756-57 (Del. 2016) (citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554
(Del. 1990)).
37
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1).
38
Harris v. State, 410 A.2d 500 (Del. 1970).
39
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013).
8
Given that intent, before considering the merits of any claims for
postconviction relief, the Court must first determine whether there are any
procedural bars to the postconviction motion.40 Rule 61(i) establishes four
procedural bars to postconviction relief.41 Rule 61(i)(1) requires that a motion for
postconviction relief be filed timely and prohibits such a motion from being filed
“more than one year after the judgement of conviction is final or, if it asserts a
retroactively applicable right that is newly recognized after the judgment of
conviction is final, more than one year after the right is first recognized by the
Supreme Court of Delaware or by the United States Supreme Court.”42
Rule 61(i)(2) bars successive motions for postconviction relief unless certain
conditions are met.43 Pursuant to Rule 61(i)(3) and (4), any ground for relief that
was not previously raised is deemed waived, and any claims that were formerly
adjudicated, whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an
appeal, in a postconviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, are
thereafter barred.44
40
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
41
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4).
42
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). See, e.g., Evick v. State, 158 A.3d 878, 2017 WL 1020465, at *1
(Del. Mar. 15, 2017) (TABLE) (affirming denial of postconviction motion as untimely when filed
more than two years after conviction became final).
43
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2). See, e.g., Walker v. State, 154 A.3d 1167, 2017 WL 443724, at *1-
2 (Del. Jan. 17, 2017) (TABLE) (denying defendant’s third motion for postconviction relief as
being repetitive).
44
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3) and (4).
9
The foregoing bars to relief do not apply to a claim that the court lacked
jurisdiction or to a claim that satisfies the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2).
Rule 61(d)(2) provides as follows:
A second or subsequent motion under this rule shall be
summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted
after a trial and the motion either:
(i) pleads with particularity that new evidence
exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is
actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges
of which he was convicted; or
(ii) pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or
the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case
and renders the conviction or sentence invalid.45
This is LaCombe’s Fourth Rule 61 Motion and it is procedurally barred. First,
the Fourth Rule 61 Motion was filed almost ten years after the judgment of
conviction became final and should be barred by Rule 61(i)(1) for being untimely.
Second, the Fourth Rule 61 Motion is barred by Rule 61(i)(2) for being repetitive.
Importantly, LaCombe did not have a jury trial but rather opted to plead guilty.
Having failed to have been convicted after a trial, Rule 61(d)(2) does not provide an
exception to his procedural bar against successive motions.46
45
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (emphasis added).
46
Pickle v. State, 2022 WL 499956, at *1 (Del. Feb. 17, 2022) (TABLE) (finding that the defendant
could not invoke Rule 61(d)(2) because he opted to plead guilty instead of going to trial).
10
The Fourth Rule 61 Motion is also procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3)
because LaCombe failed to assert any of the instant grounds for relief on direct
appeal or in any of his previous postconviction motions. At core, however, his
Fourth Rule 61 Motion simply recasts the same overarching issues raised by
LaCombe in his three prior motions for postconviction relief where he asserts that
his sentence was improper. As such, LaCombe’s current claims in his Fourth Rule
61 Motion are also procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4) as they have been
previously adjudicated by this Court. These claims cannot now be re-couched,
refined, restated or re-raised in order to again seek judicial review.47
Notwithstanding these procedural bars, LaCombe’s arguments under each of
Allen, Hernandez-Martinez, and Jones are to no avail. The Supreme Court’s holding
in Allen requires that a jury instruction be given so that the jury can make an
individualized determination regarding a defendant’s culpable mental state and his
accountability for any aggravating factor or circumstances where a defendant is
charged with crimes that have degrees.48 Allen does not require a sentencing judge
to do so when a defendant pleads guilty. A sentencing judge does, of course,
consider, among other things, the record, mitigating and aggravating factors,
47
See State v. Clay, 2022 WL 893744, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 25, 2022), aff’d Clay v. State, 2022
WL 4295417 (Del. Sept. 16, 2022) (finding that where an affidavit asserting the defendant’s
innocence was formerly adjudicated in a postconviction proceeding, it cannot constitute newly
discovered evidence in a subsequent postconviction proceeding); see also Johnson v. State, 1992
WL 183069, at *1 (Del.); Duhadaway v. State, 877 A.2d 52 (Del. 2005).
48
970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009).
11
recommendations of the parties, and presentencing reports when determining an
appropriate sentence for a defendant.49 Here, the record reflects that the sentencing
judge did so when sentencing LaCombe. In imposing the life sentence, the
sentencing judge stated that the Defendant was “a significant factor in the planning
and determination of the events that transpired” and that his role was “fairly equal
in different respects to that of [his] brother,” who shot the victims, pleaded GBMI to
Murder in the First Degree and received a life sentence.50
LaCombe’s reliance on Hernandez-Martinez is equally misplaced. In
Hernandez-Martinez, defendant pled guilty to two counts related to striking a
pedestrian with a car and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
However, multiple errors occurred during the plea process including: (i) an
indictment that failed to properly charge a crime in Count I; (ii) incorrect information
on the maximum possible sentence in the Truth-In-Sentencing form and during the
plea colloquy; and (iii) contradictory information about firearm rights post-
conviction. The defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing
and moved for an evidentiary hearing. Both motions were denied by the trial court
and the defendant was sentenced. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that these
49
See e.g. Dailey v. State, 843 A.2d 695 (TABLE) (finding that rather than exhibiting a closed
mind the sentencing judge carefully considered the record, the presentence report and the parties’
recommendations in determining the sentence to be imposed).
50
LaCombe v. State, 93 A.3d 654, slip. op. at *1.
12
cumulative errors were “so great that the Superior Court exceeded its discretion
when it refused to allow Martinez to withdraw his guilty plea.”51
As a threshold matter, LaCombe’s case is distinguishable from Hernandez-
Martinez for several reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that LaCombe did
not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing. For that reason alone, the holding
in Hernandez-Martinez does not apply to LaCombe. That being said, LaCombe
seems to argue that the plea process in his case was similarly defective because the
sentencing judge failed to make the individualized determinations required by Allen.
But, as previously discussed, there is no such requirement of the sentencing judge
under Delaware law in the guilty plea context. Therefore, the sentencing judge’s
failure to make such an individualized determination of his culpable mental state and
accountability for his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree could not
constitute a defect in the plea process. LaCombe points to no other purported defect
that would permit withdrawal of his guilty plea or otherwise asserts that his plea was
not entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
And finally, LaCombe conflates the holdings of all three cases in an effort
to couch his latest argument into an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and to
51
Id. at *4. In Hernandez-Martinez, the Supreme Court explained that “[u]nder Superior Court
Criminal Rule 32(d), a pre-sentence plea may be withdrawn for ‘any fair and just reason.’ After
sentencing, a plea may be set aside only by motion and under Rule 61.” Id. at *3.
13
further buttress his argument for withdrawing his plea. These arguments also have
no merit.
Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d) allows a defendant to withdraw a pre-
sentence plea for “any fair and just reason.”52 In Hernandez-Martinez, the Supreme
Court cited Jones and explained that in order for the court “[t]o assess a ‘fair and
just reason,’ the court will normally examine a list of non-exclusive factors, any one
of which can be conclusive of the result.”53 These non-exclusive factors, referred to
as the Scarborough factors,54 which a trial judge must consider when deciding
whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing are as
follows:
(1) the procedure of the colloquy; (2) whether the plea
was intelligent, knowing, and voluntary; (3) whether
the defendant had a basis to assert legal innocence; (4)
whether the defendant had adequate legal counsel
throughout the proceedings; and (5) whether the State
would be prejudiced or the court would be unduly
inconvenienced if the defendant were permitted to
withdraw his guilty plea.55
Again, LaCombe did not move to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing
so the standard set forth in Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d), which permits a pre-
52
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d).
53
Hernandez-Martinez v. State, 308 A.3d 1192 (TABLE), at *3.
54
See Carney v. State, 2024 WL 2808291.
55
Jones, 276 A.3d 1053 (TABLE), at *2 (quoting McNeill v. State, 2002 WL 31477132, at *1 (Del.
Dec. 18, 2006) (ORDER)).
14
sentence plea to be withdrawn for any “fair and just reason,” does not apply.56 As
such, the sentencing judge was not required to consider the Scarborough factors as
LaCombe asserts. Similarly, LaCombe’s contention that he had a “basis to assert
legal innocence” because his case was an accomplice liability case and the
sentencing judge failed to make the individualized determinations required by Allen
is not a “basis to assert legal innocence” contemplated by the Court.57 Likewise, the
claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object when “the State presented an
argument of increased sentencing by infering [sic] a higher culpability and knowing
mental state that was false” also misses the mark for the reasons previously
articulated.
56
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d).
57
See Carney v. State, 2024 WL 2808291, fn 32. In Carney, the Supreme Court notes that one
author has summarized the distinction between actual and legal innocence and describes legal
innocence as follows: “A defendant seeking relief based on legal innocence, or ‘legal
insufficiency,’ contends that the prosecutor has failed to produce sufficient evidence at a criminal
trial to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Matthew Aglialoro, A Case for
Actual Innocence, 23 CORNELL J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 635, 639 (2014) (citations omitted). In
LaCombe’s case, the record reveals that the sentencing judge was aware of the sufficiency of the
evidence in the case against the Defendant. D.I. 53 at 26-33.
15
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, LaCombe’s postconviction claims are
procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 61(i)(1)-(4). Moreover, he has failed to meet
the strict pleading requirements for proceeding with his successive motion under
Rule 61(d)(2) because he was not convicted after trial but rather pled guilty to
Murder in the Second Degree and related charges. For the foregoing reasons,
LaCombe’s Fourth Motion for Postconviction Relief should be SUMMARILY
DISMISSED58 and his Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence should be
DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/Janine M. Salomone
The Honorable Janine M. Salomone
cc: The Honorable Sheldon K. Rennie
Prothonotary
Colleen K. Norris, Esquire
Claude LaCombe, pro se. (SBI #00552189)
58
To the extent that LaCombe is also seeking discovery pursuant to his Fourth Rule 61 Motion,
that motion should also be denied.
16