Case Title: Middlebrook v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 30, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NIKERRAY K. MIDDLEBROOK, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 30, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9608015635 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  July 29, 2005 
 
Decided:  
September 21, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of September 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that the judgment of 
the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons set 
forth in its well-reasoned decision dated December 16, 2004.  We find no 
error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying the 
appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.  To the extent that the appellant 
 
2
seeks to assert claims in this appeal that were not asserted in the Superior 
Court, we decline to review those claims.1 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                       Justice  
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 8.  The appellant claims for the first time in this appeal that his counsel 
provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments at 
sentencing and by failing to request DNA or ballistics testing of evidence.