Weber v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Weber’s motion for relief from judgment because the motion was an improper attempt to evade the exclusive postconviction remedy and the procedural bars governing successive Rule 61 motions. The Court held that Weber’s expired forgery conviction could not be attacked under Rule 61 because its later use to enhance a sentence did not constitute a collateral legal burden sufficient to satisfy the custody requirement. The Court also concluded that Weber’s underlying challenge had already been litigated and was procedurally barred.