Case Title: Turner v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ORIN TURNER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 97, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0609012387A (K)  
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   July 18, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 14, 2023 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
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 order, dated March 9, 2023, summarily 
dismissing the appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief.  The appellant has 
not pleaded with particularity any circumstances under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) 
that overcome the procedural bars set forth in Rule 61,1 nor does he claim that the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.2  We also find no reversible error in the Superior 
Court’s denial of the motion for transcripts at State expense, which the appellant 
 
1 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i). 
2 Id. R. 61(i)(5). 
2 
 
filed after the Superior Court denied his motion for postconviction relief.  The 
appellant did not present the requested transcripts to the Superior Court in support 
of his motion for postconviction relief, and he has not demonstrated how the 
transcripts would assist him in presenting a claim that is not procedurally barred.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/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
3 See Pernot v. State, 2020 WL 130242, at *2 (Del. Jan. 10, 2020) (affirming Superior Court’s 
denial of motion for transcript at State expense where the appellant “did not identify any factual 
or legal grounds that would merit postconviction relief”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 
A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court 
reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court.”).