Case Title: Payne v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 430, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALONZO J. PAYNE, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 430, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID S1308012898A 
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 19, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 15, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record below, the Court concludes that the judgment below 
should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision 
dated August 13, 2018.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the 
appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred 
and that the motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) 
in order to overcome the procedural hurdles.1 
                                                 
1 To the extent the appellant’s opening brief argues that the Superior Court erred in denying 
his first motion for postconviction relief, we do not consider his claim because Payne did 
not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment with the Clerk of this Court, as 
required by Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iv) and 10(a).  Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 484 (Del. 
 
2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2012) (holding that Delaware statutes and rules preclude adoption of the federal “mailbox 
rule”).