Case Title: Coble v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 28, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH COBLE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 28, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1004005380 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2016 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 28, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of April 2016, after careful consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on 
appeal, the Court concludes that the December 18, 2015 order of the 
Superior Court dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction 
relief should be affirmed.  The motion was subject to summary dismissal 
because it was the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief 
following his 2011 guilty plea.1  The appellant also failed to plead with 
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (effective June 4, 2014) (providing that a second or 
subsequent motion for postconviction relief shall be summarily dismissed unless the 
movant was convicted after trial and pleads with particularity a claim that the movant is 
actually innocent or a claim that a new rule of constitutional law is retroactively 
applicable and renders the conviction invalid). 
 
2 
particularity the existence of new evidence that created a strong inference of 
actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that was retroactively 
applicable. Although the Superior Court erroneously applied the provisions 
of Superior Court Rule 61 that were in effect before the appellant filed his 
second Rule 61 petition on September 1, 2015,2 we nonetheless affirm the 
judgment below on the independent and alternative grounds stated in this 
Order.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 See Collins v. State, 2015 WL 4717524, *1 (Del. Aug. 6, 2015) (holding, among other 
things, that the version of Rule 61 in effect at the time the Rule 61 petition was filed 
controlled the Court’s analysis of the motion). 
3 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the 
Delaware Supreme Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than 
those articulated by the trial court).