Bagwell v. State, 384

• Decision Date: 10 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 384,1990,384
• Citation: 586 A.2d 1201
• Parties: Nathaniel BAGWELL, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 1201

586 A.2d 1201

Nathaniel BAGWELL, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 384, 1990.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Dec. 10, 1990.

Decided: Jan. 8, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1991.

Superior Court, Sussex County.

AFFIRMED.

Before CHRISTIE, Chief Justice, and HORSEY and MOORE, Justices.

ORDER

This 8th day of January 1991, the State having moved that this Court affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the grounds that it is manifest on the face of appellant's opening brief that the appeal is without merit, it appears that:

(1) Appellant Nathaniel Bagwell, entered guilty pleas in Superior Court on April 25, 1986, to murder in the first degree and a weapons offense. He was sentenced on May 16, 1986 to life imprisonment plus 30 years. No appeal was taken from those proceedings and no attempt to withdraw the guilty pleas was made although apparently Bagwell did indicate at the time he was sentenced that he was concerned about the representation he had received and that he would consult "another attorney".

(2) On August 13, 1990, more than four years after he had been sentenced, Bagwell applied to the Superior Court for post-conviction relief under Criminal Rule 61. Bagwell contended that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily and that his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Superior Court summarily denied the motion, holding that because Bagwell filed the motion more than three years after his conviction became final, his motion was barred by the terms of Rule 61(i)(1).

(3) Bagwell challenges the application of Rule 61(i)(1) to him on three grounds. Bagwell's contentions and the State's positions thereon in its motion to affirm may be summarized as follows:

(a) Bagwell contends that fundamental fairness demands that those affected by Rule 61 be given three years from the date of enactment to file for post-conviction relief. The State points out that this Court has previously ruled that the period of 15 months between the promulgation of Rule 61 and the date that the terms of Rule 61(i)(1) went into effect was a sufficient period of time to provide prisoners whose claims would be barred by Rule 61(i)(1) an opportunity to raise those claims before the effective date of Rule 61(i)(1). Boyer v. State, Del.Supr., 562 A.2d 1186, 1187-88 (1989).

(b) Bagwell next contends that Rule 61 is unconstitutional. The State points out that this Court has previously declared that the provisions of Rule 61 are constitutionally permissible. Dickens v. State, Del.Supr., No. 453, 1989...