IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. Nos. 2006004121
) 2003011608
BRIAN L. COVERDALE, )
)
Defendant. )
Submitted: March 24, 2023
Decided: March 31, 2023
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
DENIED.
ORDER
Brian L. Coverdale, pro se, Smyrna, DE.
Barzillai K. Axelrod, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, 820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of
Delaware.
WHARTON, J.
This 31st day of March, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Brian L.
Coverdale’s untimely first Motion for Post-conviction Relief, and his Motion for
Appointment of Counsel, and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:
1. On July 15, 2021, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale (“Coverdale”) pled
guilty to charges from two separate cases - Manslaughter, Driving Under the Influence
of Drugs, and Speeding from one case,1 and Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony from the other.2 On October 29, 2021, the Court imposed
an aggregate unsuspended Level V sentence of 12 years followed by decreasing levels
of supervision as well as fines for the Title 21 offenses.3 Coverdale sought a sentence
modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, which the Court denied on
January 7, 2022.4 He did not appeal either his sentence or the denial of his sentence
modification motion to the Delaware Supreme Court. He next filed this Motion for
Postconviction Relief (“Motion”) on March 24, 2023,5 along with a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel.6 Thus, the Motion for Postconviction Relief is an untimely
first postconviction relief motion.7
1
D.I. 15 (ID No. 2006004121).
2
D.I. 11. (ID No. 2003011608).
3
D.I. 19 (ID No. 2006004121) (All succeeding references are to ID NO.
2006004121).
4
D.I. 20, 21.
5
D.I. 22.
6
D.I. 23.
7
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
2
2. The Motion alleges a single claim for relief of ineffective assistance of
counsel.8 Specifically, Coverdale alleges his counsel was ineffective for: (1) “failing
to investigate relevant issues of intent that would have and did influence decision to
plead guilty;” (2) providing “faulty legal advice that lead [sic] to pleading guilty to
PFDCF in an unrelated case;” (3) entering faulty and prejudicial stipulation with
prosecution that lead [sic] to higher minimum mandatory sentence as opposed to the
alleged drug dealing;” and (4) “failure to timely file motion to modify sentence and
make aware of other postconviction options after advising that he would make me
aware.”9
3. Before addressing the merits of a defendant’s motion for postconviction
relief, the Court must first apply the procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule
61(i).10 If a procedural bar exists, then the Court will not consider the merits of the
postconviction claim.11
4. Under Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion
for post-conviction relief can be barred for time limitations, successive motions,
procedural defaults, and former adjudications. A motion exceeds time limitations if
it is filed more than one year after the conviction becomes final or if it asserts a
newly recognized, retroactively applied right more than one year after it was first
8
D.I. 22.
9
Id.
10
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
11
Id.
3
recognized.12 A second or subsequent motion is considered successive and therefore
barred unless the movant was convicted after a trial and “pleads with particularity
that new evidence exists that the movant is actually innocent” or “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 … invalid.”13
Grounds for relief “not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of
conviction” are barred as procedurally defaulted unless the movant can show “cause
for relief” and “prejudice from [the] violation.”14 Grounds for relief formerly
adjudicated in the case, including “proceedings leading to the judgment of
conviction, in an appeal, in a post-conviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas
corpus hearing” are barred.15 These bars to relief are inapplicable to either a claim
that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that pleads with particularity that new
evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent
in fact, or that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactively applicable, applies
to the movant’s case and renders the conviction invalid.16
5. Summary dismissal is appropriate if it plainly appears from the motion
for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the
12
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
13
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
14
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).
15
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
16
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
4
movant is not entitled to relief.17 Here, after careful review of the Motion and the
record in the case, it is plainly apparent that Coverdale is not entitled to relief and
summary dismissal is appropriate.
6. The Motion is time-barred. The Court sentenced Coverdale on October
29, 2021.18 Thus, his conviction became final on that date. This Motion was filed
on March 24, 2023, nearly 5 months too late.19 He does not allege that the Court
lacked jurisdiction, nor that the bar to relief of Rule 61(i)(1) is made inapplicable by
Rule 61(i)(5). The Motion simply alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Because
this Motion is untimely, and Coverdale has failed to overcome the time bar of Rule
61(i)(1), his Motion is barred.
THEREFORE, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale’s Motion for Postconviction
Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. His Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Investigative Services
17
Id.
18
D.I. 19.
19
D.I. 24.
5
State v. Coverdale
Combined Opinion