Case Title: Caulk v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 233, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT CAULK, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 233, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. N1705002474 
§                      N1705004722 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 3, 2021 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 2, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below—which 
includes both trial counsel’s affidavit filed in response to the appellant’s allegations 
of ineffective assistance of counsel and the Superior Court sentencing transcript—
we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 
reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its June 29, 2021 order denying the 
appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief.1 Absent plain error, which we do 
 
1 State v. Caulk, 2021 WL 2662250 (Del. Super. Ct. June 29, 2021). 
not find here, we decline to consider the arguments that the appellant raises for the 
first time on appeal.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for 
review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider 
and determine any question not so presented.”).