Case Title: Dixon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 214, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-10-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TRAEVON DIXON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 214, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID No. 1809015332 (S) 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2022 
Decided: 
October 11, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s decision, dated June 2, 2022, denying 
the appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief as untimely.  The appellant’s 
conviction became final on March 27, 2020; he filed a motion for postconviction 
relief in the Superior Court nearly two years later, on March 7, 2022.1  The appellant 
 
1 The appellant filed a motion for appointment of postconviction counsel on March 7, 2022.  The 
States indicates that it is not clear from the record whether the Superior Court also received the 
motion for postconviction relief on March 7, 2022, or whether it received that motion on March 9, 
2022.  The Superior Court’s decision denying the motion states that the motion was filed on March 
7, and we therefore use that date; in any event, the difference between the two dates is not material 
here. 
 
2 
has not asserted that a newly recognized, retroactive right applies to his case;2 nor 
has he pleaded any other circumstances that overcome the procedural bar set forth 
in Rule 61(i)(1).3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1). 
3 See id. 61(i)(5) (“The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subdivision shall 
not apply either to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that satisfies the pleading 
requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of this rule.”).