Case Title: Cook v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 510, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY COOK, SR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 510, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0608025757 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 8, 2012 
Decided: December 10, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of December 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Leroy Cook, Sr., filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 21, 2012 order summarily dismissing his fifth 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in January 2009, Cook 
entered a plea of guilty to one count of Rape in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to 25 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 12 
years for probation.  Cook did not file a direct appeal.  In October 2009, 
Cook filed his first motion for postconviction relief.  After reviewing Cook’s 
motion, his counsel’s affidavit and the State’s response, the Superior Court 
denied Cook’s motion.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.2  
This Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of his three subsequent 
postconviction motions.3 
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his fifth 
postconviction motion, Cook claims that the Superior Court erred when it 
summarily dismissed his motion because a) there was no specific rationale 
provided; and b) the argument that he was denied his right to file a direct 
appeal had never been raised previously and, therefore, the merits of that 
argument should have been considered. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Cook v. State, 2010 WL 682545 (Del. Feb. 26, 2010). 
3 Cook v. State, 2010 WL 3565495 (Del. Sept. 14, 2010); Cook v. State, 2011 WL 880847 
(Del. Mar. 10, 2011); Cook v. State, 2012 WL 3096623 (Del. July 30, 2012). 
 
3
 
(4) 
Delaware law requires that, when reviewing a postconviction 
motion, the Superior Court first determine whether the procedural 
requirements of Rule 61 have been met before considering the substantive 
merits of the claims.4  While the Superior Court’s August 21, 2012 order 
does not explicitly state that Cook’s motion is procedurally barred, it is clear 
that that is the basis for the Superior Court’s decision.5  As such, we 
conclude that Cook’s first claim is without merit.   
 
(5) 
Moreover, the Superior Court properly refused to reach the 
merits of Cook’s second claim because it was never presented in any of his 
previous postconviction motions and, therefore is procedurally barred 
pursuant to Rule 61(i) (2) in the absence of any evidence that the claim 
should be considered in the interest of justice.  Therefore, we conclude that 
Cook’s second claim also is without merit. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
                                                 
4 Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 150 (Del. 1996). 
5 The Superior Court references its previous February 24, 2012 order, which denied 
Cook’s fourth postconviction motion as procedurally barred.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice