Case Title: Dawkins v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRYAN L. DAWKINS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 2, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0210013335A 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 26, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 28, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of April 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant Bryan Dawkins filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief.  The 
State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Dawkins’ opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
 
2 
(2) 
The record reflects that Dawkins was convicted in 2004 of 
Murder in the First Degree and related charges in the stabbing death of his 
estranged wife, Stacey.  This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on 
direct appeal.1  Thereafter, Dawkins filed a motion for postconviction relief, 
which the Superior Court denied.  We affirmed that decision on appeal.2  
Dawkins filed his second motion for postconviction relief in September 
2008, which the Superior Court also denied.  This appeal followed.  
(3) 
We review the Superior Court's denial of a postconviction 
motion under Rule 61 for abuse of discretion.3  The Court first must consider 
the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive 
issues.4  Rule 61(i)(4) bars litigation of any claim that previously was 
adjudicated unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of 
justice. 
(4) 
In this case, all of Dawkins’ claims either were rejected on 
direct appeal or on appeal from the denial of his first postconviction motion.  
We do not find that reconsideration of these previously adjudicated claims is 
warranted in the interest of justice.  Accordingly, we find no abuse of 
                                                 
1 Dawkins v. State, 2005 WL 2254197 (Del. Sept. 15, 2005). 
2 Dawkins v. State, 2008 WL 2404444 (Del. June 13, 2008). 
3 Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 551 (Del. 1998). 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
 
3 
discretion in the Superior Court’s denial of Dawkins’ second motion for 
postconviction relief.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice