Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Shamus Rowley’s motion styled as a Rule 33 motion for newly discovered evidence. The Court held that Rule 33 did not apply because Rowley had pleaded guilty rather than proceeded to trial, and that any related Rule 61 claim was procedurally barred and lacked merit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty may obtain a new trial under Superior Court Criminal Rule 33 based on newly discovered evidence.
- Whether Rowley's Rule 33 motion was untimely because it was filed more than two years after final judgment.
- Whether Rowley's successive motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).
- Whether alleged misconduct at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and the State's purported failure to disclose it under Brady, entitled Rowley to discovery, an evidentiary hearing, or relief from his guilty pleas.
Holdings
- Rule 33 does not provide a basis for a new trial when the defendant entered guilty pleas and had no prior trial.
- Even if Rule 33 applied to a guilty plea, Rowley's motion was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after final judgment.
- Rowley's claim for postconviction relief was procedurally barred under Rule 61 because it was a successive motion, he pleaded guilty rather than being convicted after trial, and he did not plead the required new evidence of actual innocence or a retroactively applicable new constitutional rule.
- Rowley's OCME-related claims did not provide a basis to avoid the effect of his voluntary and knowing guilty pleas or to obtain postconviction relief.
Key quotations
“Rule 33 “plainly contemplates that the defendant must have had a previous ‘trial’ before either a judge or jury.”” (¶ 5)
“A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment.” (¶ 6)
Factual background
Rowley pleaded guilty to cocaine and firearm offenses and was sentenced to twenty-three years of Level V incarceration, suspended after eleven years for decreasing levels of supervision. After unsuccessful postconviction proceedings, he sought relief based on alleged misconduct at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. His 2015 motion relied on evidence concerning another case and repeated arguments previously rejected by the Superior Court.
Procedural history
Rowley pleaded guilty in 2012 to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited and received a twenty-three-year Level V sentence, suspended after eleven years for decreasing levels of supervision. He did not appeal the judgment. His first Rule 61 motion was denied, as was a later motion to amend based on alleged misconduct at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. In 2015, he filed a Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence; the Superior Court denied it, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.