Case Title: Slade v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 180, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NATHANIEL SLADE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 180, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN96-06-1690 
§                    IN96-06-1691 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 16, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 10, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of July 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Nathaniel Slade, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s March 8, 2006 order denying his third motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
2
 
(2) 
In June 1997, Slade was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During 
the Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 5 
years.  Slade’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on 
direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Slade claims that the Superior Court erroneously 
denied his motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred.2  
According to Slade, under Short v. State, 865 A.2d 512, 515 (Del. 2004), the 
expert opinion of the Medical Examiner should not have been presented at 
trial to prove the victim’s cause of death and, in addition, the expert’s 
opinion had an insufficient factual basis.  He argues that, for these reasons, 
the Superior Court should have reached the merits of his motion in the 
interest of justice.3 
 
(4) 
The Short case does not support the proposition advanced by 
Slade.  Slade’s claim of error with respect to the expert opinion of the 
Medical Examiner is, therefore, without merit.  Moreover, Slade’s claim of 
an insufficient factual basis for the expert’s opinion is not supported by the 
record.  In the absence of a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice 
                                                 
1 Slade v. State, Del. Supr., No. 322, 1997, Holland, J. (July 29, 1998). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1) and (4). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
3
because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental 
legality, reliability integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the 
judgment of conviction,4 we conclude that the Superior Court correctly 
denied Slade’s motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred.   
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Slade’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Id.