Case Title: Buchanan v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 104, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID BUCHANAN, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 104, 2014 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§ 
§  Cr. ID 0801031784 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 5, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 21, 2014 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of May 2014, after careful consideration of appellant David 
Buchanan’s opening brief and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as the 
State’s motion to affirm and response to the motion to proceed in forma pauperis,1 
we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the 
Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated February 14, 2014.  The Superior 
Court did not err by concluding that Buchanan’s third motion for postconviction 
relief was procedurally barred and that Buchanan had failed to overcome the 
procedural hurdles.   
                                                 
1 Buchanan’s “Motion for Order Granting Access to Superior Court Docket and Filings,” which 
was filed on May 5, 2014, is hereby stricken as a nonconforming document. 
 
2
 
Moreover, we find that Buchanan’s certification in his motion and affidavit 
to proceed in forma pauperis, which averred that the issues raised in this appeal 
“have never been raised or disposed of before in any court,” was patently false.  
With one exception, all the claims raised on appeal have been previously 
considered and rejected.  Buchanan’s remaining claim—that the Superior Court 
erred by denying his request for counsel to pursue his third postconviction 
motion—was frivolous because Buchanan had no legal or equitable right to the 
appointment of counsel to pursue claims that were procedurally barred.   
 
We therefore deny Buchanan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis nunc 
pro tunc.  It is unlikely, however, that the Court will ever be able to collect the 
required filing fee from Buchanan.  In the future, the Clerk of the Court is directed 
to refuse any filing from Buchanan unless the filing is accompanied by the required 
filing fee or the filing is accompanied by a completed motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis, with the necessary certifications, and that motion is first granted by the 
Court. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice