State v. Louis, 0009015005

Defendant James St. Louis (incarcerated) refiled on August 29, 2017 a document that the court treated as his eighth Rule 61 postconviction motion challenging pretrial procedures and trial counsel’s effectiveness.
The filing reincorporated a May 31, 2017 “Request” that alleged the prosecutor used a third party to influence a complaining witness’s trial testimony and sought an evidentiary hearing.
The Superior Court previously dismissed the May 31 Request as repetitive, frivolous and an undue use of court resources and pointed to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 9, 2017 decision that branded St. Louis’s filings untimely, repetitive and frivolous.
The Delaware Supreme Court directed the clerk to refuse further filings related to the 2001 convictions unless accompanied by a filing fee or a granted in forma pauperis motion, and enjoined St. Louis from filing new appeals or extraordinary writs concerning those convictions without court permission.
The Superior Court treated the August 29 filing as a successive Rule 61 motion, found it procedurally barred because St. Louis failed to plead new actual-innocence evidence or a newly applicable retroactive constitutional rule, and summarily dismissed it under Rule 61(d)(2).
The court ordered that any future filings attacking counsel, pretrial, trial, convictions or sentences must comply with Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii); noncompliant submissions will be rejected without docketing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the August 29, 2017 filing is a proper collateral attack or a repetitious barred filing	Court (State) argued the filing is successive and procedurally barred under Rule 61	St. Louis argued the filing challenges constitutionality of pretrial procedures and counsel’s failure to obtain an evidentiary hearing — not a direct attack on conviction/sentence	Court held it is a successive Rule 61 motion and procedurally barred; summarily dismissed under Rule 61(d)(2)
Whether defendant pleaded new evidence or a new retroactive constitutional rule sufficient to overcome procedural bar	State maintained defendant did not meet Rule 61(d)(2) standards	St. Louis did not allege particularized new evidence of actual innocence or a new retroactive constitutional rule	Court held defendant failed to plead particularized new evidence or new retroactive law; dismissal appropriate
Whether future filings should be accepted and under what conditions	Court sought to protect resources and enforce Supreme Court injunction	St. Louis sought to proceed without meeting Supreme Court’s IFP/permission requirements	Court ordered future filings related to these convictions must comply with Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii) and be accompanied by fee or granted IFP; noncompliant submissions will be returned without docketing

St. Louis v. State, 162 A.3d 101 (Del. 2017) (Supreme Court described St. Louis’s prior filings as untimely, repetitive, frivolous and enjoined further filings without court permission)
St. Louis v. State, 36 A.3d 350 (Del. 2012) (Supreme Court appellate disposition affirming prior rulings concerning defendant’s challenges)
St. Louis v. State, 105 A.3d 990 (Del. 2014) (Supreme Court appellate disposition relevant to defendant’s repeated collateral litigation)
St. Louis v. State, 5 A.3d 631 (Del. 2010) (Supreme Court appellate disposition addressing earlier postconviction/appeal issues)
St. Louis v. State, 19 A.3d 302 (Del. 2011) (Supreme Court appellate disposition further documenting the history of defendant’s appeals)