Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00763-Gl\/IS Document 5 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 5
SHAWN VANLIER, §
§ No. 96, 2005 C_ I
Defendant Below- § O I TM5 C (PHYS) .
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware .
§ in and for New Castle County .
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr.ID No. 9809006423
§ a-~———-·~
Plaintiff Below- § i -_i ; _ _ _ _
Appellee. § i D ,
I mi? I »
Submittedzmluly 22, 2005 "° ‘ ‘
,t·· __5` ‘
Before STEELE, Chieflustice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices
0 R D E R
This 16th day of September 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: _ 5 I
(1) The defendant-appellant, Shawn VanLier, tiled an appeal from
the Superior Court’s February 10, 2005 order denying his motion for
postconviction relief. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm.
(2) In March 2001, VanLier was found guilty by a Superior Court
jury of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree,
Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree and Assault in the Third
Degree. On the rape conviction, he was sentenced to life in prison, to be

_ Case 1:05-cv-00763-Gl\/IS Document 5 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 2 of 4
process rights were violated at trial; and g) his counsel provided ineffective
assistance. To the extent VanLier has not argued other grounds previously
raised to support his appeal, those grounds are deemed waived and will not
be addressed by this Court.2
(5) In his direct appeal, VanLier claimed that his right to a speedy
trial was violated and that the judge should have dismissed the indictment
sua sporzze on that ground. In this appeal, VanLier again claims that his
right to a speedy trial was violated. Because that claim was previously
adjudicated in his direct appeal, VanLier is procedurally barred hom
asserting it in this proceeding, unless reconsideration of the claim is
warranted in the interest of justice.} We have carefully reviewed the record
~ in this case and do not find that VanLier’s speedy trial claim warrants
reconsideration.
(6) VanLier’s remaining claims of error and abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial judge, problems with the police investigation and
improprieties regarding the evidence presented at trial are procedurally
defaulted unless VanLier can show cause for relief and prejudice from a
2 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). In his motion for postconviction
relief tiled in the Superior Court, VanLier also claimed that the jury instructions were
improper and he should not have been permitted to appear at trial in prison clothing.
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 6I(i) (4).
.-_ · 3

_ Case 1:05-cv-00763-Gl\/IS Document 5 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 3 of 4
review of the record does not support VanLier’s claim. We find no error on
the part of VanLier’s counsel that resulted in prejudice to his case.S
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
[1 r$’ Tglgi, ,4
Justibe U
S Moreover, VanLier is prevented from using, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim
as a means to overcome the procedural bars, since there is no substantive basis for that
claim.
.· . 5

Case1:O5—cv—OO763-GMS D0cument5 Fi|ed11/O7/2005 Page40f4
\a @@§< ·`5.’ g *9 JJ ja,
g § E x. _._ _
,b * F i
/A/UMA O _ na'` g
. xg OQ ` _
Q5 ... U" .. 1
` I- '·•¤•.,,_ ` `.';:. I-
O *
"U \ ig.;
l
» :2; q
E-· ji §
E Q ¤¤ * '
. E —¤ Q
gg O
gg, Bd 3
mj) O M j
’ (OQ U C.) Eq
3 ~9 E 2 °
0~ B E E
G2 E E E E
: 53 ¤ Z m