State v. Colson, 1507022018

Raymond Colson pleaded guilty on March 15, 2016 to first‑degree assault, first‑degree robbery, two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, and wearing a disguise; sentenced August 19, 2016 to 14 years Level V.
Colson did not appeal; his conviction became final September 18, 2016.
He filed a first motion for postconviction relief (PCR) on October 31, 2016 raising ineffective‑assistance claims; the court expanded the record, received counsel’s affidavit, and denied the First Motion on June 20, 2017.
Colson filed a second PCR on February 3, 2021 asserting (generally) that his plea resulted from faulty legal advice and invoking a "newly discovered evidence" theory; he also moved for appointment of counsel.
The Commissioner held the Second Motion is procedurally barred as untimely, waived (issues available but not raised earlier), and a prohibited successive motion; Colson failed to plead any new reliable evidence or a retroactive constitutional rule, and his COVID‑19 timing argument was rejected.
The Commissioner recommended summary dismissal of the Second Motion and denial of the appointment‑of‑counsel request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of second PCR	Second motion is untimely under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (filed >1 year after conviction final)	COVID‑19 and related circumstances excuse late filing	Motion is untimely; COVID timing does not excuse delay; summary dismissal appropriate
Waiver / failure to raise claims earlier	First PCR and its amendments are deemed to have presented all grounds; unraised claims are waived	Claims concern matters not previously presented or involve newly discovered evidence	Claims are waived for failure to present in first PCR; waiver bars relief
Successive‑motion exceptions (new evidence or new rule)	No new reliable evidence pleaded showing actual innocence; no new retroactive constitutional rule cited	Asserts existence of hidden evidence and unspecified violations warranting review	Exceptions not satisfied; defendant failed to plead particularized new evidence or new rule; successive motion barred
Appointment of counsel for PCR litigation	Counsel may be appointed only if motion meets pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)	Requests counsel to develop and perfect appellate/ PCR issues	Appointment denied because the Second Motion fails Rule 61 pleading requirements

Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural standards for postconviction relief and ineffective‑assistance pleading requirements)
Cannon v. State, 127 A.3d 1164 (Del. 2015) (new‑evidence/actual‑innocence standard for considering successive PCR motions)