State of Delaware v. Harris.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 December 3, 2009 N440 State Mail Warren Lee Harris James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977 RE: Motion for Postconviction Relief Defendant ID No. 91S04938DI (R-3) Dear Mr. Harris: Following trial in May, 1992, you were convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse in the first degree. On July 10, 1992, you were sentenced to twenty-four (24) years followed by probation. The victim was your four-year old daughter. A DNA analysis indicated your semen was intermixed with her blood on her sheets. Your first Motion for Postconviction Relief attacked your trial competency. After full discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the Motion was denied on December 10, 1996. Your second Motion for Postconviction Relief was denied on January 8, 1998. You attacked the waiver of indictment, right to have a preliminary hearing and your presence at all stages of the trial. Appeals in all of the above were affirmed. On November 30, 2009, you filed your third Motion for Postconviction Relief. It is very brief and very conclusory. You allege the following: ! Ground One: double jeopardy - false imprisonment, illegal detention arrest or search and seizure ! Ground Two: effective assistance - mis-identification, suppression of favorable evidence ! Ground Three: unfulfilled plea agreement to remain silent, deniel (sp.) the right to confront witnesses, uninformed waiver of the right to counsel to remain silent. Also filed was a motion for appointment of counsel with an attachment labeled Motion for: postconviction mis-identification . The attachment has a long, rambling, nonsensical paragraph about lower and higher courts making investigations and wiping off records. It does not articulate a basis for any claim. The present Motion is denied as being (i) conclusory; (ii) time-barred by Rule 61(i)(1), and repetitive per Rule 61(i)(2). There is no reason offered to revisit this nineteen (19) year old case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Yours very truly, /s/ T. Henley Graves T. Henley Graves THG:baj cc: Prothonotary Department of Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
