Case Title: Denston v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 341, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GREGORY A. DENSTON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 341, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9711014977 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 26, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 4, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of December 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Gregory A. Denston, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 19, 2007 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In September 1998, Denston pleaded guilty to Attempted 
Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced to a total of 45 years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after 30 years for decreasing levels of 
 
2
supervision.  Denston did not file a direct appeal, but instead filed a motion 
for sentence modification, which the Superior Court denied.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Denston claims that the Superior Court 
misconstrued the grounds for relief asserted in his latest postconviction 
motion.  Denston contends that the Superior Court failed to address his claim 
that the sentencing proceeding was invalid because the Superior Court did 
not set forth on the record its reasons for imposing a sentence in excess of 
the TIS guidelines.   
 
(4) 
 Assuming that Denston’s claim is cognizable under Rule 61, 
we agree that the Superior Court failed to address Denston’s current claim 
and instead denied his postconviction motion on the basis of claims he 
asserted in his previous postconviction motion.  However, because 
Denston’s current claim clearly is both time-barred1 and without merit,2 in 
the interest of judicial economy we will affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment, albeit on grounds different from those relied upon by the Superior 
Court.3 
 
                                                 
1 Because Denston’s convictions became final in February 1999, he had until February 
2002 in which to file a timely postconviction motion.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
2 Sanders v. State, Del. Supr., No. 578, 1999, Walsh, J. (Mar. 8, 2000) (citing Mayes v. 
State, 604 A.2d 839, 846 (Del. 1992)). 
3 Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice