State v. Johnson, ID 1602004456A

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
Writing for the CourtVivian L. Medinilla Judge
Docket NumberID 1602004456A
Decision Date18 November 2022



ID No. 1602004456A

Superior Court of Delaware

November 18, 2022

Submitted: November 10, 2022


Vivian L. Medinilla Judge

AND NOW TO WIT, this 18th day of November, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant Jonathan Johnson ("Defendant")'s multiple motions, the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant was charged with multiple offenses after law enforcement executed a search warrant of his home and located firearms, ammunition, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.[1]

2. On the day of trial, April 25, 2017, Defendant pled guilty to one count of Drug Dealing and one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a


Felony ("PFDCF").[2] Prior to sentencing, the State filed a Motion to Declare Defendant a Habitual Offender and to be sentenced on the PFDCF charge under 11 Del. C. § 4214.[3]On October 27, 2017, the Court granted the State's motion,[4] and sentenced Defendant to the minimum mandatory twenty-five years for the firearm charge and to probation for the Drug Dealing offense.[5]

3. On October 17, 2018, Defendant filed his first Motion for Postconviction Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.[6] The Court denied the motion.[7]Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Postconviction Decision,[8] which this Court dismissed as untimely.[9]

4. Between October 2019 and January 2020, Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus,[10] a Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing,[11] and a Motion to Stay the consideration of his Rule 61 Motion.[12] These requests were denied on August 14, 2020.[13] During the pendency of his Rule 61 Motion, Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Delaware Supreme Court; denied on April 15, 2020.[14]


5. In July of 2021, Defendant filed an "Affidavit of Fact: Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure/Writ of Revocation of Plea Contract &Affidavit of Facts."[15] He demanded "to have a scheduled special appearance and/or phone/video conference" with the Court and a payment of $10 million. Defendant's requests were denied.

6. On February 3, 2022, Defendant filed another Rule 61 Motion[16] and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.[17] On March 22, 2022, this Court found the claims barred under Superior Court Criminal Rules 61(i)(2)(i) and 61(i)(4)[18] and summarily dismissed that motion.[19]

7. From August to November 2022, Defendant now files approximately twenty-one new requests.[20] This time, he asks the Court to vacate his sentence as it is


an "ex post facto" violation, to withdraw or set aside the plea agreement, to hold a suppression hearing, to grant his default judgment motion against the State, and to grant his request that the State pay him $1,830,000.00. In his motions, he claims excusable neglect, ineffective assistance, prejudice, and the State's failure to respond to his claims. These motions and claims are baseless or have been squarely addressed by this Court.

8. Defendant's Motions...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT