Case Title: Robles v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 263, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS ROBLES, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 263, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1601002267 (N) 
§   
§                                    
§  
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 22, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 5, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s order denying the 
appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief.  The appellant’s motion, filed six 
years after his convictions became final, was procedurally barred as untimely filed.1  
And, contrary to his claims on appeal, neither the appellant’s co-defendant’s 
purported recantation nor the appellant’s mental health treatment records constitutes 
new evidence that the appellant is actually innocent of the crimes to which he 
 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). 
2 
 
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty.2  Under the circumstances 
presented here, we also find that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when 
it denied the appellant’s motions for transcripts and discovery.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
       Chief Justice  
 
 
 
2 See Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (“In the absence of clear and convincing 
evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty 
Plea Form and by his sworn testimony prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea.”). 
3 See Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008) (observing that an indigent 
defendant does not have an absolute right to transcripts prepared at State expense in postconviction 
proceedings).