State v. Pentoney

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) I.D. No. 2006001985
) 2103014700
Jeremy Pentoney, ) 2203013481
)
Defendant. )
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
Submitted: January 17, 2024
Decided: February 1, 2024
Upon Consideration of Motion for Postconviction Relief,
DENIED.
Lindsay Taylor, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover,
Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.
Jeremy Pentoney, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, Delaware,
Pro Se.
CONNER, J.
1) This is the Court’s decision on a pro se motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 filed by Defendant Jeremy Pentoney
(“Mr. Pentoney”). Facing several charges and 47 years to life of incarceration, Mr.
Pentoney entered into a plea agreement with the State. On July 8, 2022, this Court
sentenced Mr. Pentoney to 9 years of level V incarceration followed by various levels
of supervision. Subsequently, Mr. Pentoney sought a reduction of his sentence by
filing a Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) “placeholder” motion, which this Court
denied on September 27, 2022. On September 28, 2023, Mr. Pentoney filed this
motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.
2) Rule 61(m)(1) specifies that where a defendant does not file a direct
appeal, “[a] judgment of conviction is final for the purpose of this rule … [i]f the
defendant does not file a direct appeal, 30 days after the Superior Court imposes
sentence....”1 Mr. Pentoney did not file a direct appeal. Further, Mr. Pentoney’s Rule
35(b) “placeholder” motion is not a direct appeal. Therefore, Mr. Pentoney’s
judgment of conviction became final on August 7, 2022, 30 days after Superior Court
imposed sentence.
3) It is well established law that the Court will not address the substantive
merits of a claim if a Criminal Rule 61 procedural bar exists.2 Rule 61(i)(1) states
1
Super. Ct. R. 61(m)(1).
2
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
2
that, “[a] motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year after
the judgment of conviction is final.…”3 Mr. Pentoney’s motion for postconviction
relief was filed on September 28, 2023, more than one year after August 7th, 2022,
when his judgment of conviction became final. Therefore, Mr. Pentoney’s motion
for postconviction relief is untimely and procedurally barred.
4) Rule 61(i)(5) provides a reprieve to the procedural bars of Rule
61(i)(1)-(i)(4) if the petitioner’s claim for postconviction relief challenges that the
court lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Pentoney does not claim that the Superior Court
lacked jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Pentoney first contends his two privately retained
counsel were ineffective because they did not adequately present his mental health
as a mitigating factor. Mr. Pentoney secondly asserts that the State broke its
agreement by recommending a 26-year sentence. Mr. Pentoney appears to believe
that all parties agreed for him to serve six years. However, this is in direct
contradiction of the language of the plea agreement, which states, “STATE AND
DEFENDANT AGREE to recommend: No less than 6 years level 5 incarceration.”
The state was not bound to recommend only six years.
5) Rule 61(i)(5) also overrides the procedural bars of Rule 61(i)(1)-(i)(4)
if the petitioner’s motion satisfies the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or
(2)(ii). However, to satisfy the pleading requirement of 61(d)(2) the movant must
3
Super. Ct. R. 61(1)(1).
3
have been convicted after trial. Mr. Pentoney was not convicted after trial, he
plead guilty, precluding him from using Rule 61(d)(2) as a reprieve from Rule 61’s
procedural bars.
After considering the filings and the law, Mr. Pentoney’s Motion for
Postconviction relief must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mark H. Conner
Mark H. Conner, Judge
cc: Prothonotary
4