State v. Williams
1804003122
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 29, 2021Background
- Anthony Williams was convicted (Dec. 17, 2018) of two counts of fourth-degree rape and sentenced (Feb. 28, 2019); his direct appeal was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
- Williams filed a postconviction motion on March 19, 2021, which the Superior Court summarily dismissed as procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1).
- The Court entered its dismissal order on August 2, 2021; Williams submitted a letter-motion dated August 13, 2021 seeking reargument and recusal, received by the court on August 16, 2021.
- The court treated the submission as (among other things) a motion for reargument governed by Civil Rule 59(e) (via Crim. R. 57(d)) and held it was untimely under the five-day rule.
- Williams additionally sought the judge’s recusal, invoking Williams v. Pennsylvania and Rippo v. Baker; the judge applied the Los subjective/objective test and found no disqualifying bias or appearance of bias.
- Both motions — for reargument and for recusal — were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion for reargument | Williams: asks the court to rehear its Aug. 2 order denying postconviction relief | Court: Civil Rule 59(e) requires filing within five days; motion filed after that deadline; court lacks jurisdiction to consider it | Denied as untimely; court had no jurisdiction to hear it |
| Recusal based on prior prosecutorial role (Williams v. Pennsylvania) | Williams: judge must recuse when prior prosecutorial involvement suggests due-process conflict | Court: judge never acted as a prosecutor in this matter or otherwise assisted prosecution; only presided as judge | Denied — no prior prosecutorial involvement requiring recusal |
| Recusal based on appearance/probability of bias (Rippo/Los) | Williams: even absent actual bias, circumstances create an intolerable probability of bias | Court: applied Los two-step (subjective impartiality and objective appearance); judge is subjectively impartial and no extrajudicial source of bias exists | Denied — neither subjective nor objective Los prongs satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2016) (due-process requires recusal where judge had prior role in decision to prosecute or seek death penalty)
- Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (U.S. 2017) (recusal required when objective probability of actual bias is too high)
- Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991) (establishes Delaware two-step subjective/objective test for judicial disqualification)
- Gattis v. State, 955 A.2d 1276 (Del. 2008) (applies Los test and explains objective prong requiring extrajudicial-source bias)
- Colon v. State, 962 A.2d 916 (Del. 2008) (motions for reargument must be filed within the five-day rule; Superior Court cannot extend time)