Mazzatenta v. State, 366,1990

• Decision Date: 28 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 366,1990,366,1990
• Citation: 593 A.2d 590
• Parties: Joseph M. MAZZATENTA, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 590

593 A.2d 590

Joseph M. MAZZATENTA, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 366,1990.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: March 28, 1991.

Decided April 23, 1991.

Superior Court, New Castle County.

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

HORSEY, Justice.

This 23rd day of April, 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) The appellant, Joseph M. Mazzatenta, was convicted after a Superior Court nonjury trial of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted rape in the second degree, and two weapons offenses. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the attempted rape conviction and the attendant weapon conviction, but found insufficient evidence to support the attempted robbery charge and its companion weapon charge. Mazzatenta v. State, Del.Supr., No. 38, 1978, McNeilly, J. (June 15, 1979) (ORDER).

(2) In August 1990, over eleven years after this Court affirmed his attempted rape and weapons convictions, Mazzatenta applied to the Superior Court for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Mazzatenta alleged ineffective assistance of defense counsel at trial and on direct appeal to this Court. The Superior Court summarily denied the motion, ruling that the motion was barred by the time limitation of Rule 61(i)(1) and that Mazzatenta had made no colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice under Rule 61(i)(5).

(3) On appeal, defendant, who is indigent, incarcerated and unrepresented, contends that he has been effectively denied recourse to Rule 61 through Superior Court's refusal to provide him with a copy of the Public Defender's files in this case and a copy of trial transcripts and the Superior Court record. Defendant asserts that these papers, transcripts and records, are necessary for him to pursue his claim that his counsel at trial and on direct appeal, the Public Defender, was ineffective. This Court has previously considered and denied a motion by defendant for an order directing the Public Defender to provide defendant with such documents and records from its files. Mazzatenta v. State, Del.Supr., No. 366, 1990, Horsey, J. (Jan. 29, 1991) (ORDER). In addition, this Court has previously considered and refused defendant's request that the prothonotary be directed to provide defendant with a copy of his 1977 trial transcript. Mazzatenta v. State, Del.Supr., No. 366, 1990, Christie, C.J. (Dec. 18, 1990) (ORDER). This Court authorized Superior Court to entertain defendant's request for further transcripts at public expense; Superior Court denied such request; and this Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the request in its January 19, 1991 Order. This Court's Order dated January 29, 1991 fully addressed defendant's contention that a denial of access to such documents and records effectively precludes him from meaningful relief under Rule 61. See Mazzatenta v. State, No. 366, 1990, Horsey, J. (Jan. 29, 1991) (ORDER), paragraph (3).

(4) Defendant next argues that Superior Court Rule 61 is unconstitutional as applied to him. His contentions may be summarized as follows. He argues that Superior Court's summary dismissal on procedural grounds prevented him from developing his claims of mental instability and ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant further objects to the retroactive application of Rule 61, which defendant asserts violates due process. Defendant finally argues that he has been denied due process by (1) the adoption of Rule 61 without notice that Superior Court would adopt a new rule for postconviction relief; and (2) the Superior Court's summary denial of his motion without affording defendant an opportunity to argue reasons why the procedural bar should not apply.

(5) Defendant's claims are...