Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 253, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ZAAHIR SMITH, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 253, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No.  1605014734A (N) 
§   
§ 
§                                    
   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 4, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 11, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment below should 
be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in its June 
20, 2023 order denying the appellant’s first, untimely motion for postconviction 
relief.1  Although the Superior Court noted that the claims raised in the appellant’s 
supplemental response were time-barred, it nonetheless considered them on their 
merits.  And the court—which appointed counsel to assist the appellant with the 
postconviction proceedings and expanded the record with briefing as well as an 
 
1 State v. Smith, 2023 WL 4102774 (Del. Super. Ct. June 20, 2023). 
2 
 
affidavit from trial counsel—did not abuse its discretion by declining to expand the 
record further.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm be 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g)(1) (noting that the Superior Court may direct the parties to 
expand the record).