Case Title: Coles v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 117, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID COLES,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 117, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0301011099 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 23, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 12, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, David Coles, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s February 29, 2012 order adopting the July 14, 2011 report of the 
Superior Court Commissioner, which recommended that Coles’ first motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 be denied.1  For 
the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Superior Court’s judgment must be 
reversed and the matter remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in 
accordance with this Order. 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
 
(2) 
On January 18, 2013, Coles’ appeal was stayed pending this Court’s 
decision in Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 350, 2012, which concerned the issue 
of the appointment of counsel in an indigent movant’s first postconviction 
proceeding.  By order dated May 6, 2013, the Superior Court amended Rule 61 of 
its Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide that the Superior Court would “appoint 
counsel for an indigent movant’s first postconviction proceeding.”  The amended 
Rule further specified that it “shall be effective on May 6, 2013 and shall apply to 
postconviction motions filed on or after that date.”  On May 23, 2013, this Court 
issued its decision in Holmes v. State, reversing the June 7, 2012 order of the 
Superior Court, which denied Holmes’ motion for postconviction relief. 
 
(3) 
Although Coles filed his Rule 61 motion before the effective date of 
the Superior Court’s Rule 61 amendment, we reach the same result as if the 
amended Rule were applicable to his case.  We conclude that, under the particular 
circumstances of this case, Coles should have been appointed counsel in 
connection with his first postconviction motion.2  Because we reverse and remand 
to the Superior Court for the appointment of counsel for Coles in connection with 
his first postconviction motion, we decline to address the merits of Coles’ Rule 61 
motion in this appeal. 
                                                 
2 Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 350, 2012, Jacobs, J. (May 23, 2013). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s February 
29, 2012 order denying Coles’ motion for postconviction relief is REVERSED and 
this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Order.  
Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice