Case Title: Bordley v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 596, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
GREGORY A.  BORDLEY,
§
§
No.  596, 2002
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court   
§
of the State of Delaware, in 
v.
§
and for Kent County in IK98-
§
01-0264-R1, 0266-0267-R1. 
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  9801004118.
Submitted: December 27, 2002
Decided:
April 1, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 1st day of April 2003, 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)
This is an appeal by Gregory Bordley following the Superior
Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief.  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 Bordley’s opening brief that the appeal is without
merit.  We agree and affirm.
1Del.  Code Ann.  tit 11, § 4214(b) (2001).
2Bordley v.  State, 2000 WL 1626987 (Del.  Supr.).
2
(2)
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, Gregory Bordley was
convicted of Burglary in the First Degree, Assault in the Third Degree, and
Criminal Mischief.  Bordley was declared to be an habitual offender and was
sentenced to life in prison.1  By Order dated October 25, 2000, this Court
affirmed Bordley’s conviction and sentence.2
(3)
In June 2001, Bordley filed a motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  Bordley filed an amended motion
in July 2001.  The Superior Court referred Bordley’s motion and amended
motion to a Superior Court Commissioner, who issued a report dated April 18,
2002, finding that Bordley’s nine claims were either procedurally barred or
were without merit.  By order dated September 30, 2002, the Superior Court
adopted the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations and denied
Bordley’s motion for postconviction relief.   This appeal followed.
(4)
In his opening brief on appeal, Bordley raises six claims, some of
which overlap with the nine claims that Bordley raised in the Superior Court.
3Murphy v.  State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993).
3
To the extent Bordley has not briefed his other postconviction claims, those
claims are deemed waived and abandoned on appeal.3
(5)
On appeal, Bordley claims that his trial and appellate counsel
provided ineffective assistance of counsel when: (i)  trial counsel failed to
adequately prepare for trial; (ii)  trial counsel did not know whether or not the
State properly could request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of
Burglary in the Second Degree; (iii)  trial counsel failed to present a defense;
and (iv) appellate counsel failed to raise a meritorious claim on appeal. 
Bordley also claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it failed
to grant the defense’s request for a trial continuance and when it denied Bordley
the right to confront the witnesses against him.
(6)
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions, we
find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on
the basis of the Superior Court’s decision dated September 30, 2002 that
adopted the Commissioner’s well-reasoned report and recommendation.  The
Superior Court properly denied Bordley’s postconviction claims as
procedurally barred and/or as without merit.  We agree that Bordley’s claims
4Super.  Ct.  Crim. R.  61(i)(4).
5Super.  Ct.  Crim. R.  61(i)(5), 61(i)(3).
4
do not warrant reconsideration4 or application of the exception to the procedural
bar.5   
(7)
It is manifest on the face of Bordley’s brief that the appeal is
without merit.  The issues raised on appeal are clearly controlled by settled
principles of law, and there was no error of law.  To the extent the appeal
presents issues of judicial discretion, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
      
                               Chief Justice