Case Title: Walls v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 213, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BENJAMIN WALLS, III, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 213, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0303007019 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 7, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of August 2016, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court 
concludes that the April 12, 2016 order of the Superior Court dismissing the 
appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed.  The motion 
was subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 because 
it was the appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief and the appellant failed 
to plead with particularity the existence of new evidence that created a strong 
inference of actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that was 
2 
 
retroactively applicable.1 This is Walls’ sixth unsuccessful motion for 
postconviction relief.  We will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources to 
address untimely and repetitive claims.  We encourage Walls to be mindful of Rule 
61(j).2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                               
 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 
2 Super. Ct. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the 
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).