S.Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0028

In the review of appeals from Superior Court orders denying a new trial and refusing reconsideration of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed two decades after petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, no error is found in the rulings below and the orders appealed from are affirmed. The petitioner's new trial motion, filed approximately 20 years after the trial and direct appeal in his case, was untimely under both Rule 33 of the Federal Rules and Rule 135 of the Superior Court Rules. The sufficiency of the evidence at trial to support a conviction may not be challenged in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner's claim that he was deprived of due process because the prosecutor solicited false testimony from witnesses during the course of the trial was not supported by proof of either the falsity and materiality of testimony, or the prosecutor's knowledge of such alleged falsity. Habeas corpus review is an extraordinary remedy and will not be allowed to do service for an appeal. Criminal defendants are barred from using habeas applications to re-litigate issues decided on direct appeal. Accordingly, the Superior Court was correct in rejecting the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the orders of that court are affirmed.