State v. Biggins ( 2022 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
CRAIG A. KARSNITZ 1 The Circle, Suite 2
RESIDENT JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
August 10, 2022
James A. Biggins
SBI #319264
Unit W
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Road
Smyrna, DE 19977
Re: State of Delaware v. James A. Biggins
Def. ID No. 9609015504
Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Relief and
Consolidated Motion for Discovery
Dear Mr. Biggins:
On May 11, 2022, you filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief and
Consolidated Motion for Discovery (collectively, the “Rule 61 Motion”). This was
not your first Rule 61 Motion. Under the Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal
Procedure, second or subsequent motions for postconviction relief are not permitted
unless, in the Rule 61 Motion, you plead with particularity new evidence creating a
strong inference of your actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that
1
applies retroactively to your case and renders your convictions invalid.1 Since you
pled neither of these in the Rule 61 Motion, the Rule 61 Motion was procedurally
barred and I summarily dismissed it on May 19, 2022.2
On May 31, 2022, your Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Relief
and Consolidated Motion for Discovery dated May 22, 2022 (the “Motion for
Reconsideration”) was filed with this Court. In the Motion for Reconsideration, you
asked me to reconsider my dismissal of the Rule 61 Motion.
There is nothing for me to reconsider. The six grounds you state in your
Motion for Reconsideration have been presented and rejected before.
Moreover, on August 23, 2021, I prohibited you from filing any matter with
this Court without first obtaining written approval based on your history of filing
numerous, meritless pleadings.3 The Delaware Supreme Court has also prohibited
you from filing any further papers challenging your convictions in this case without
a Justice's prior approval.4 Your repetitive, meritless and frequent filings are testing
the patience of this Court. I again prohibit you from such filings without first
obtaining written approval.
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).
3 Letter of Craig A. Karsnitz to James A. Biggins dated August 23, 2021.
4 Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214, at *1 (Del. July 11, 2011).
2
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Craig A. Karsnitz
cc: Prothonotary
3