Woods v. State ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BERNARD WOODS, §
§ No. 496, 2014
Defendant-Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
v. § for New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0708031045
§
Plaintiff-Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 19, 2014
Decided: January 27, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 27th day of January 2015, upon consideration of the appellant‟s
opening brief and the appellee‟s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Bernard Woods, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court‟s denial of his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”).1 The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of Woods‟ opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and
affirm.
1
State v. Woods, 2014 WL 4364903 (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 2014).
(2) It appears from the record that Woods pled guilty in 2008 to two drug
offenses, two weapons offenses, and one count of second degree conspiracy. Two
months after his guilty plea and sentencing, Woods filed a motion for reduction of
sentence, which was denied. Two months after the denial of his motion for
reduction of sentence, Woods filed his first motion for postconviction relief.
(3) Woods‟ postconviction motion raised overlapping claims of
prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence,
and involuntary guilty plea, based on allegations that he was coerced into pleading
guilty to “fraudulent” weapon offenses. After receiving responses from defense
counsel and the State, a Superior Court Commissioner issued a report
recommending that the motion be denied as procedurally barred and without merit.
The Commissioner found that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was barred under
Rule 61(i)(4) because Woods had raised a similar claim of “malicious prosecution”
in his unsuccessful motion for reduction of sentence. The Commissioner found
that the involuntary guilty plea claim was not supported by the record. After
analyzing the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence,
the Commissioner found that both claims were without merit and also that the
insufficient evidence claim was waived by Woods‟ voluntary guilty plea.
(4) By order dated September 10, 2009, after de novo review, the
Superior Court accepted the report and recommendation and denied the motion.
2
On appeal, Woods continued to argue that his defense counsel was ineffective for
failing to pursue a motion to suppress and for coercing him into pleading guilty to
“fraudulent” weapon offenses. This Court denied Woods‟ first motion for
postconviction relief in an order dated April 26, 2010.2 We affirmed the Superior
Court‟s judgment after finding that defense counsel had, in fact, filed a pretrial
motion to suppress and other pretrial motions.3 We also found that:
During the course of the plea colloquy, Woods expressed
satisfaction with the representation provided by his
counsel. He also acknowledged that he was pleading
guilty because he, in fact, was guilty. He acknowledged
his understanding that he was waiving certain rights by
pleading guilty, including his right to pursue the pretrial
suppression motion. The Superior Court specifically
found that Woods was competent to enter a plea and that
his plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily. The trial court reviewed the sentence with
Woods, and Woods acknowledged that it was the
sentence he agreed to in his plea form. Woods also
stated under oath that no one had coerced him into
entering a plea.4
(5) Woods filed his second motion for postconviction relief in June 2010,
again alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary due to prosecutorial misconduct
and ineffective assistance of counsel. By report dated June 23, 2010, the
Commissioner recommended that the motion should be summarily dismissed under
2
Woods v. State, 2010 WL 1664008 (Del. Apr. 26, 2010).
3
Id., at *2.
4
Id., at *2 ¶ 8.
3
the procedural bars of Rule 61(i) because it was “substantially similar, if not
identical” to Woods‟ first postconviction motion. On July 7, 2010, after de novo
review, the Superior Court denied the motion. On appeal, we again affirmed the
Superior Court judgment, concluding that the court “did not err in adopting the
Commissioner‟s findings that appellant‟s second motion for postconviction relief
was both repetitive and previously adjudicated and that appellant had failed to
overcome these procedural hurdles.”5
(6) Undaunted by the denial of his first and second postconviction
motions, Woods next sought relief in the federal court, filing a habeas corpus
petition raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial
misconduct, unknowing and involuntary guilty plea, illegal search and seizure,
insufficient evidence, and actual innocence. In a memorandum opinion dated
September 11, 2013, the United States District Court considered the claims and
denied relief.6
(7) Woods filed his third motion for postconviction relief in March 2014,
again alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of
counsel. Also, in related motions, letters and memoranda, Woods requested the
5
Woods v. State, 2011 WL 339698 (Del. Feb. 1, 2011).
6
Woods v. Pierce, 967 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2013).
4
appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and permission to expand the
record, arguing that he was innocent of the weapon offenses.
(8) By memorandum opinion dated August 27, 2014, the Superior Court
denied relief, ruling that the motion was untimely and repetitive under Rule
61(i)(1) and (2), and that the claims were either formerly adjudicated under Rule
61(i)(4) or procedurally defaulted under Rule 61(i)(3). The court denied the
requests for counsel and for an evidentiary hearing on the basis that Woods had not
demonstrated good cause for the appointment of counsel or that there would be
“any value” in an evidentiary hearing. The court denied the request to expand the
record on the basis that Woods had not identified any new or additional evidence.
When ruling that Woods‟ claims for relief did not warrant review under Rule
61(i)(5), the court found that:
Defendant repeatedly asserts that his plea was somehow
based on fraud, but has not referred to any specific
incidences of misconduct or otherwise provided a
coherent explanation of his claim. Defendant implicitly
claims that trial counsel hid mitigating evidence from
Defendant, but fails to provide this Court with evidence,
or any method upon which to judge the veracity of his
claim. By pleading guilty, Defendant effectively waived
any errors or defects occurring prior to the entry of the
plea. Defendant has failed to substantiate or make any
evidentiary showing that he did not understand the nature
or associated penalties of the charges to which he pled.
Defendant fails to establish a violation of his Sixth
Amendment right, and fails to establish that there was a
5
miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional
violation pursuant to Rule 61(i)(5).7
(9) We review the Superior Court‟s denial of postconviction relief for
abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.8 The procedural requirements of
Rule 61 must be considered before addressing any substantive issues.9
(10) In this case, having considered the applicable Rule 61 procedural
bars,10 we conclude that Woods‟ third postconviction motion is procedurally barred
under Rule 61(i)(1) – (4).11 On appeal, Woods has not established that his motion
raises a colorable claim of a manifest injustice because of a constitutional
violation12 or a newly-recognized retroactively applicable right.13 Nor has he
7
State v. Woods, 2014 WL 4364903, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 2014) (citations omitted).
8
Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996).
9
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
10
Woods‟ third postconviction motion, filed in March 2014, was governed by the version of
Rule 61 then in effect. Effective June 4, 2014, Rule 61 was amended to include a procedural
mechanism for summarily dismissing a second or subsequent postconviction motion before
considering the Rule 61(i) procedural bars.
11
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (2013) (barring postconviction motion filed more than
one year after the judgment of conviction is final); id. at (i)(2) (barring any ground for relief not
asserted in a prior proceeding as required under (b)(2)); id. at (i)(3) (barring any ground for relief
not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction); id. at (i)(4) (barring
formerly adjudicated claim).
12
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) (providing that the procedural bars of (i)(1), (2), and (3)
shall not apply to a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a
constitutional violation).
13
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (providing that an untimely motion may be considered
when the movant asserts a newly recognized retroactively applicable right).
6
shown any indication that consideration of his third postconviction motion or a
formerly adjudicated claim is warranted in the interest of justice.14
(11) We also conclude that the Superior Court did not err or abuse its
discretion when denying the requests for the appointment of counsel, for an
evidentiary hearing, and to expand the record, which were largely based upon
Woods‟ claim of “actual innocence,” which was considered and denied by the
District Court.15 “[A] defendant is not entitled to have a court re-examine an issue
that has been previously resolved „simply because the claim is refined or
restated.‟”16
(12) For the third time in five years, this Court on appellate review has
considered Woods‟ challenges to his 2008 guilty plea and has affirmed the
Superior Court judgment after concluding that the claims were without merit,
procedurally barred, or both. In the future, should Woods again seek
postconviction relief from his 2008 guilty plea, this Court will not invest judicial
resources addressing claims previously considered and rejected by the Superior
14
See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (2013) (providing that a formerly adjudicated claim may
be considered in the “interest of justice”).
15
Woods v. Pierce, 967 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1029 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2013).
16
Skinner v. State, 607 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Del. 1992) (quoting Riley v. State, 585 A.2d 719, 721
(Del. 1990)).
7
Court, the United States District Court, or this Court. We encourage Woods to be
mindful of Rule 61(j).17
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State‟s motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
17
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a 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.”).
8