IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER H. WEST, §
§ No. 271, 2016
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1107001026
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 16, 2016
Decided: August 31, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 31st day of August 2016, having considered the appellant’s opening
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Christopher H. West, has appealed the summary
dismissal of his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61. The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the
opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) West pled guilty in 2012 to Robbery in the First Degree and Robbery
in the Second Degree. As part of the plea agreement, West agreed that he was
eligible to be sentenced as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). After
granting the State’s motion to declare West a habitual offender, the Superior Court
sentenced West to twenty-eight years at Level V suspended after twenty five years
for decreasing levels of supervision. West did not appeal the guilty plea or
sentence.
(3) In his first motion for postconviction relief, filed in 2013, West
claimed that his defense counsel was ineffective, his guilty plea was involuntary,
his confession was coerced, and his sentence was illegal. The Superior Court
appointed counsel to represent West in the postconviction proceeding. After
reviewing the record, West’s Postconviction Counsel moved to withdraw on the
basis that he had found no claims to advocate on West’s behalf. A Superior Court
Commissioner reviewed the matter and issued a report recommending that West’s
postconviction motion should be denied as without merit, and that Postconviction
Counsel should be allowed to withdraw.1 By order dated January 7, 2014, the
Superior Court adopted the report and recommendation, denied the postconviction
motion, and granted Postconviction Counsel’s motion to withdraw. On appeal, this
Court affirmed.2
1
State v. West, 2013 WL 6606833 (Del. Super. Comm’r Dec. 12, 2013) (Report and
Recommendation).
2
West v. State, 2014 WL 4264922 (Del. Aug. 28, 2014).
2
(4) West filed his second motion for postconviction relief and a separate
“motion for withdrawal of guilty plea” in 2015. In both motions, West again
alleged that his guilty plea was involuntary due to the ineffectiveness of his
defense counsel. By order dated May 21, 2015, the Superior Court denied the
motions as procedurally barred under Rule 61(i).3 West did not appeal the
Superior Court’s order.
(5) West filed his third motion for postconviction relief on March 21,
2016. In the motion, as amended on April 7, 2016, West alleged that his guilty
plea was involuntary due to the ineffectiveness of his defense counsel, and that
there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of Robbery in the First
Degree. By order dated May 16, 2016, the Superior Court summarily dismissed
West’s third postconviction motion as procedurally barred under Rule 61(d)(2).
This appeal followed.
(6) Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, the Court
concludes that the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of West’s third motion for
postconviction relief, as amended, should be affirmed. West’s motion was subject
to summary dismissal because it was his third motion for postconviction relief
following his guilty plea in 2012, and West failed to plead with particularity the
3
State v. West, 2015 WL 3429919 (Del. Super. May 21, 2015).
3
existence of new evidence that created a strong inference of actual innocence or a
new rule of constitutional law that was retroactively applicable.4
(7) West has filed three unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief in
the span of three years. West’s first motion was denied as without merit, and on
appeal, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.5 West’s second
postconviction motion was denied as procedurally barred6 and his third motion was
summarily dismissed. In this appeal, the Court has concluded that the Superior
Court’s summary dismissal of West’s third postconviction should be affirmed.
Going forward, the Court will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources to
address procedurally barred claims. West is advised to be mindful of Rule 61(j).7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
4
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
5
Supra note 2.
6
Supra note 3.
7
Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(j) (“If a [postconviction] motion is denied, the state may move for an
order requiring the movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant
from public funds.”).
4