Case Title: Melton v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 457, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES E. MELTON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 457, 2013 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1107021277 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 24, 2013 
Decided: 
November 20, 2013   
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of November 2013, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel, the appellee’s response to the 
motion, and the appellant’s reply, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s August 20, 2013 denial 
of the appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”), the appellant, James E. Melton, has moved 
for the appointment of counsel.  In response to Melton’s motion, the 
appellee, State of Delaware, suggests that this matter be remanded to the 
Superior Court with directions to appoint counsel to represent Melton on an 
2 
 
amended postconviction motion or, in the alternative, that counsel be 
appointed to represent Melton on appeal.   
(2) 
In reply to the State’s response to his motion for appointment of 
counsel, Melton requests that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court 
for the appointment of counsel for the purpose of filing an amended motion 
for postconviction relief.  Having considered the parties’ positions, the Court 
agrees with the parties that this matter should be remanded to the Superior 
Court for the appointment of counsel, amended briefing, and reconsideration 
of Melton’s first motion for postconviction relief.  
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with 
this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
Justice